ciso_assistant_api_folders_quality_check_retrieve_2Retrieves the quality check status of assessments within a specific folder by ID, enabling targeted compliance review and issue identification.
Returns the quality check of assessments for a specific folder.
| 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 annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the tool returns a 'quality check of assessments', but it does not explain what that quality check contains, whether it is computed or stored, or any other behavioral detail beyond a basic read operation.
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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple retrieve call, though it could use one additional clause to clarify the folder id or return shape.
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 endpoint with no output schema and an undocumented 'id' parameter, the description should explain what 'quality check' means and clarify the identifier. It also fails to address the duplicate sibling tool, leaving the agent with insufficient context to call it confidently.
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 schema has one parameter ('id') with 0% description coverage. The description implies the id refers to a 'specific folder', but it does not state the expected identifier format (e.g., UUID or reference) or whether it is a folder id specifically.
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 uses a clear verb ('Returns') and identifies the resource as a 'quality check of assessments for a specific folder'. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the nearly identical sibling 'ciso_assistant_api_folders_quality_check_retrieve', so an agent cannot tell which variant to choose.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'ciso_assistant_api_folders_quality_check_retrieve' or any other quality-check endpoint. No prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual triggers are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.