ciso_assistant_api_ebios_rm_studies_status_retrieveRetrieve the status of EBIOS RM studies through the CISO Assistant API to check progress and manage risk assessments.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description then claims the endpoint allows studies 'to be viewed or edited', which implies a write capability the annotations deny, and adds nothing about what a status endpoint actually returns (a choice list vs. an object).
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?
A single short sentence with no padding, front-loaded with the resource. Its brevity is not the problem; the content is simply uninformative, but the dimension of size and structure is satisfied.
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 a zero-parameter schema, the description is the only place that could explain that this returns the status vocabulary for EBIOS RM studies and how to use it. It says nothing of the kind, so an agent cannot predict the response shape or when this call is warranted.
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 baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to compensate for on the schema side. It neither adds nor loses anything 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 sentence names the resource (ebios rm studies) but the verb is generic boilerplate, 'viewed or edited', and never mentions what is distinctive about this tool: that it is the *status* endpoint. An agent cannot tell from this text how it differs from siblings such as ebios_rm_studies_retrieve, ebios_rm_studies_list or ebios_rm_studies_partial_update.
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, no when-not-to-use, and no alternatives are named. The agent must infer from the tool name alone that this endpoint surfaces status values rather than a study record.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.