ciso_assistant_api_get_audits_metrics_retrieveRetrieves audit metrics, including average progress and audit statistics, to support compliance reporting and audit performance tracking.
API endpoint that returns the expensive audit metrics (progress avg + audits stats).
| 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 readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — that the endpoint is expensive — and hints at the returned fields, but says nothing about access requirements, caching, or latency beyond 'expensive'.
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 sentence with no waste, front-loading the resource and immediately qualifying it with cost and payload. Every clause earns its place.
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 zero params and no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden and does sketch the two result groups (progress average and audit statistics). It is adequate, though a little thin on what the stats contain and whether results are org-wide or scoped.
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 the baseline is 4; nothing in the schema needs explanation and the description correctly implies a parameterless call.
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 ('returns') and resource ('audit metrics') and names the payload contents (progress avg + audits stats), which separates it from the generic get_metrics_retrieve sibling. It does not explicitly say how it differs from get_metrics or get_counters, so an agent still has to infer the boundary.
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?
The word 'expensive' implies caution about calling it, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative for cheaper aggregate metrics. Usage is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.