ciso_assistant_api_frameworks_tree_retrieveRetrieves a framework tree by ID so you can inspect its hierarchical structure for compliance mapping and review.
API endpoint that allows frameworks to be viewed or edited.
| 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 declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, yet the description says the endpoint allows frameworks to be "viewed or edited", implying a write capability the annotations explicitly deny. No additional behavioral context (tree depth, auth, pagination) is given.
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?
It is a single sentence, so nothing is bloated, but the opener "API endpoint that allows" is filler and the sentence carries no usable information. Brevity without substance is under-specification, not conciseness.
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 one required param and no output schema, the description says nothing about what a "framework tree" contains, its nesting shape, or how it differs from other framework reads. An agent cannot confidently invoke this tool from the description.
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 description coverage is 0% and the single required `id` parameter is undocumented in both schema and description. The description does not say whether `id` is a framework UUID, a library id, or a root node identifier.
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 is generic boilerplate ("API endpoint that allows frameworks to be viewed or edited") that restates the resource but never mentions the distinguishing feature in the tool name: that it returns a *tree*. It does not differentiate from siblings like frameworks_retrieve, frameworks_list, or frameworks_object_retrieve.
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 over frameworks_retrieve, frameworks_list, or frameworks_cascade_info_retrieve, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent is left to guess from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.