ciso_assistant_api_folders_get_accessible_objects_retrieveRetrieve all folders, perimeters, frameworks, and risk matrices accessible to your user account to identify available GRC objects.
Return the list of folders, perimeters, frameworks and risk matrices
| 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, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that multiple object types are aggregated in one payload, but says nothing about scoping ('accessible' to whom), pagination, or result shape for a multi-entity response.
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 front-loaded sentence naming the action and all returned resource types with zero filler. Nothing is redundant.
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-parameter, annotation-covered read tool this is nearly complete: it names what comes back. The remaining gap is the meaning of 'accessible' (user-scoped vs. folder-scoped) and whether the result is aggregated per object type, which matters given no output schema.
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 per the rubric the baseline is 4. Nothing in the description misleads about inputs, and the empty schema is consistent with the described behavior.
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?
States a specific verb ('Return the list of') and enumerates the resources returned: folders, perimeters, frameworks and risk matrices. This is clearer than most siblings, but it neither explains the 'accessible objects' qualifier nor distinguishes itself from ciso_assistant_api_folders_list or similar retrieve tools.
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 guidance, no alternatives named, no prerequisites. 'Accessible' hints at permission-based scoping but the agent gets no rule for choosing this over folders_list or perimeters_list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.