ciso_assistant_api_entity_assessments_conclusion_retrieveRetrieve the conclusion of entity assessments to review compliance status. Use this endpoint to fetch assessment outcomes for GRC reporting.
API endpoint that allows entity assessments 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 entity assessments to be 'edited' – a write capability that contradicts the read-only annotation. No other behavioral context (return shape, filtering, auth) is added.
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, so it is appropriately sized and front-loaded, but the sentence is boilerplate that conveys almost no useful information, so its structure earns no bonus.
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 zero-param retrieve with no output schema, the description should at least clarify what the 'conclusion' resource is and what the caller gets. Instead it offers no return-value or scoping detail, leaving the agent with an under-specified contract.
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-coverage baseline of 4 applies. The description adds no parameter detail, 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 a generic DRF boilerplate ('allows entity assessments to be viewed or edited') that never mentions the distinguishing 'conclusion' aspect encoded in the tool name. It does not differentiate from siblings like entity_assessments_retrieve or entity_assessments_status_retrieve, so an agent cannot tell which retrieve variant to pick.
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 context is given, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. It states only that the endpoint exists, leaving the agent to infer selection from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.