ciso_assistant_api_ebios_rm_studies_risk_matrix_retrieveRetrieve the risk matrix for a specific EBIOS RM study using its ID, so you can review and assess the study's risk mapping.
API endpoint that allows ebios rm studies to be viewed or edited.
| 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 declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, yet the description asserts the endpoint allows studies to be 'viewed or edited', implying a write capability that the annotations deny. It also says nothing about what a 'risk matrix' response contains or what authorization/tenant scoping applies, so beyond the contradiction it adds no behavioral information.
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 filler, so it is concise, but that brevity comes from under-specification rather than efficiency and nothing useful is front-loaded beyond the resource name.
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?
For a read-only retrieval with one opaque identifier and no output schema, the description does everything wrong: no indication of the returned risk matrix structure, no id semantics, and no clarification relative to the many sibling risk-matrix endpoints. Only the bare resource name is conveyed.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the single required parameter 'id' is bare (string, no description). The description never mentions the id, so it does not compensate by clarifying whether it is the study UUID, a risk-matrix id, or an object reference.
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 text restates the auto-generated endpoint name rather than describing the tool: it says ebios rm studies can be 'viewed or edited', which is both vague and omits the actual payload of interest, the risk matrix. It gives no way to distinguish this from siblings such as ebios_rm_studies_retrieve, ebios_rm_studies_risk_matrix_retrieve vs. operational_scenarios_risk_matrix_retrieve, or other risk_matrix endpoints.
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 routing to alternatives such as ebios_rm_studies_retrieve (the study itself) or the feared_events/operational_scenarios risk_matrix variants. The agent must infer purpose purely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.