ciso_assistant_api_folders_quality_check_retrieveReturns quality checks for assessments grouped by folder, helping users review compliance status and identify assessment issues.
Returns the quality check of assessments grouped by folder.
| 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 needs no restatement. The description adds one behavioral detail beyond the annotations — that results are grouped by folder — but says nothing about scope of assessments included, permissions, or response shape. Adequate, not rich.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly under-specification rather than disciplined concision.
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?
With no parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing what comes back, and 'quality check ... grouped by folder' only hints at the payload. An agent still cannot tell what a quality check result contains or which assessment type is covered.
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 there is nothing for the description to explain and the baseline 4 applies. The single-sentence description is consistent with a no-argument, no-filter retrieval.
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 a specific verb (returns) and resource (quality check of assessments grouped by folder), which is enough to distinguish it from generic list/retrieve siblings. It does not clarify which assessment domain (compliance vs risk) it covers, and there is an identical sibling (folders_quality_check_retrieve_2) plus compliance_assessments_quality_check_retrieve that it never disambiguates against.
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 prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. In a sibling set containing three other *_quality_check_retrieve tools, the agent gets no signal about which to pick or what the folder-grouped variant is for.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.