ciso_assistant_api_findings_retrieveFetch one finding record by ID from CISO Assistant, with unauthorized related fields masked, to review its details.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint. The description adds a real behavioral detail beyond those: unauthorized related fields are masked in the returned object. However, it does not describe auth requirements, failure behavior, or what 'unauthorized' means in practice.
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?
One short sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the return behavior. It is efficient but under-specified rather than maximally informative.
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?
A retrieval tool with no output schema needs the description to identify the resource, explain the id, and clarify masking/authorization behavior. It only covers masking, leaving the resource identity and id semantics absent.
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 sole required 'id' parameter has 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions the id or what it identifies. It provides no compensation for the schema gap.
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 'Return a single object' but never names the resource (a finding) or the retrieval key. An agent cannot tell from the description alone whether this returns a finding, an assessment, or another object; the tool name carries the meaning, not the description.
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 indication of when to use this versus ciso_assistant_api_findings_list or ciso_assistant_api_findings_object_retrieve, nor any prerequisite such as needing an existing finding ID. Routing is left entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.