ciso_assistant_api_ebios_rm_strategic_scenarios_object_retrieveRetrieves a specific EBIOS RM strategic scenario by ID to inspect its details within CISO Assistant risk management data.
api_ebios_rm_strategic_scenarios_object_retrieve
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.3.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description contributes nothing about authentication, scoping, related-object expansion, or 404 behavior — zero added value beyond structured fields.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
It is technically short, but that is under-specification rather than conciseness: the single phrase carries no information beyond the tool name, so no sentence 'earns its place' because none exists.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and an undocumented id, the description is the only place to explain what is returned and how this differs from the ~10 sibling strategic-scenario endpoints; it does none of that. Annotations cover safety, which prevents a 1.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There is one required parameter 'id' with 0% schema description coverage, and the description says nothing about it — no format, no UUID-vs-slug clarification, no mention that it identifies a strategic scenario rather than a study or feared event. The parameter is conventional, which keeps this above 1, but the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description is the operation ID restated verbatim ('api_ebios_rm_strategic_scenarios_object_retrieve'), adding nothing beyond the name and title. From the identifier alone an agent can infer a single strategic-scenario lookup by id, but the description itself states no verb or resource in prose and does not distinguish it from sibling operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance whatsoever on when to use this versus the many adjacent EBIOS RM strategic-scenario tools (list, retrieve, object_retrieve, cascade_info_retrieve, studies_* variants). The agent must guess whether 'object_retrieve' differs from 'retrieve'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.