ciso_assistant_api_frameworks_report_retrieveRetrieve a cross-assessment report for one framework by ID to compare assessment results and compliance coverage.
Cross-assessment report for one framework.
| 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 and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that: no indication of report size, whether it aggregates multiple assessments, or whether it requires a specific framework state (e.g. an in-progress assessment) to return data.
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 short sentence with no padding, so it is not verbose. But the brevity is under-specification rather than efficiency: the one sentence does not carry enough information to justify being the entire description.
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?
No output schema exists and the only parameter is undocumented, so the description carries the full explanation burden and falls well short. It never says what the report returns or what the id must reference, which an agent needs in order to call it correctly.
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?
Schema coverage is 0% and the description does not mention the single required parameter at all. An agent cannot tell from either source whether 'id' is a framework ID, an assessment ID, or a report identifier, which is a critical ambiguity for a one-parameter lookup.
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 phrase 'Cross-assessment report for one framework' identifies a report resource scoped to a single framework, which does distinguish it from generic siblings like frameworks_retrieve or frameworks_mapping_stats_retrieve. However, it omits an explicit verb and never clarifies what a 'cross-assessment' report actually contains, leaving the agent to guess at the output's nature.
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 statement of when to use this tool versus frameworks_retrieve, compliance_assessments_recap_retrieve, or the many other framework report endpoints. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no alternative named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.