ciso_assistant_api_entities_retrieveFetch one entity by ID while masking unauthorized fields, enabling safe inspection of permitted GRC records without exposing restricted data.
Return a single object with unauthorized related fields masked.
| 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?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds a useful behavioral detail not in the annotations: unauthorized related fields are masked, but it does not explain the masking rules, permission requirements, or response shape.
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?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Its brevity is efficient, though it contributes to gaps in other dimensions.
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 retrieve tool with 0% parameter description coverage and no output schema, the description omits the resource name and id semantics. Annotations cover the safety profile, but the description is not complete enough for confident invocation.
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% for the single required id parameter, and the description does not explain that id identifies the entity, its format, or lookup semantics. The schema alone leaves the parameter undocumented.
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 says it returns a single object and mentions masking, but never names the resource (entity) or distinguishes it from sibling tools such as entities_list or entities_object_retrieve. The verb is clear, but the object is too generic to be precise.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus entities_list or entities_object_retrieve, and no prerequisites are stated. Usage is only implied by the required id parameter.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.