ciso_assistant_api_get_governance_calendar_data_retrieveRetrieve governance activity calendar data from CISO Assistant to track scheduled compliance and risk governance activities.
API endpoint that returns governance activity calendar data
| 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, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations provide — no mention of time range, scoping, refresh behavior, or what 'calendar data' contains.
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 wasted clauses, though the 'API endpoint that...' preamble is boilerplate that could be dropped for a cleaner front-loaded statement.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description is the only source of information about what the tool returns. It does not say whether the calendar contains events, date ranges, activity types, or what fields to expect, leaving an agent unable to predict the response shape.
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. The description has no parameters to explain, and 100% schema coverage is vacuous but consistent.
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 states a specific verb ('returns') and resource ('governance activity calendar data'), so an agent knows it is a retrieval of calendar data. However, it offers no differentiation from the many sibling calendar/retrieve endpoints (e.g., task_templates_calendar_retrieve), and 'governance activity calendar' is left as unexplained domain jargon.
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 call this tool, what context or state it requires, or which sibling endpoint to prefer. The description stops at restating the endpoint's function, leaving selection entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.