ciso_assistant_api_entity_assessments_object_retrieveRetrieve a specific entity assessment by ID to access its details for compliance and risk management workflows.
API endpoint that allows entity assessments 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?
The description says the endpoint allows entity assessments to be 'viewed or edited,' but the annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. This is a direct contradiction: an edit-capable endpoint would not be read-only.
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 short sentence and is front-loaded. It is concise, though its brevity stems from generic boilerplate rather than useful specificity.
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 no output schema, the description should clarify the identifier, return behavior, and read-only nature. Instead it only provides a generic endpoint description and even misstates the operation as editable.
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 input schema has one required 'id' parameter with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does not mention the id parameter at all, leaving the agent to infer that it is the entity assessment identifier.
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 names the resource ('entity assessments') and says it can be viewed or edited, but the operation is ambiguous and does not distinguish this tool from sibling retrieve/list tools such as ciso_assistant_api_entity_assessments_retrieve or ciso_assistant_api_entity_assessments_object_retrieve. The phrase 'viewed or edited' further muddies whether this is a read or write endpoint.
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 guidance is given on when to use this specific retrieve endpoint versus the sibling list, retrieve, or object_retrieve endpoints. It also provides no prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.