ciso_assistant_api_ebios_rm_studies_quotation_method_retrieveRetrieve the quotation method linked to an EBIOS RM study so you can verify how risk treatment costs are calculated.
API endpoint that allows ebios rm studies to be viewed or edited.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.3.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description claims the endpoint allows studies to be "edited," which contradicts the read-only profile. Beyond that contradiction it discloses nothing about what the endpoint actually returns.
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 a single short sentence with no padding, so it is concise. That brevity comes at the cost of usefulness, though: the one sentence that is present is generic and partly wrong, rather than front-loading real information.
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 no parameter documentation, the description is the only place to learn what this endpoint returns. It doesn't supply that, and it never explains the "quotation method" concept the name refers to, so an agent cannot call this with confidence.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so the schema leaves nothing to explain and the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter meaning, but none is needed here.
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 boilerplate: "API endpoint that allows ebios rm studies to be viewed or edited" restates the resource name without stating a specific verb scope. It doesn't explain what a "quotation method" is or how it differs from the many sibling ebios_rm_studies endpoints (risk_matrix, gravity, likelihood, status).
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative among the dozens of ebios_rm_studies siblings. An agent has no basis for choosing this over ciso_assistant_api_ebios_rm_studies_retrieve or the other lookup endpoints.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.