ciso_assistant_api_integrations_configs_remote_objects_retrieveRetrieve remote objects for a specific integration configuration by ID to inspect and manage connected external resources.
API endpoint for creating, viewing, updating, and deleting Integration Configurations.
| 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 description explicitly claims create/update/delete behavior while annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, a direct contradiction. For a read-only endpoint, describing mutations is actively misleading.
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 short sentence, so it is not bloated, but its brevity comes at the cost of correctness and front-loading the wrong operation semantics.
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, no parameter documentation, no annotations-based behavioral context, and a description that misrepresents the operation. An agent has almost nothing reliable to call this tool 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?
The single 'id' parameter has 0% schema description coverage, and the description says nothing about it. The description does not compensate for the undocumented parameter at all; the agent cannot infer what the id identifies or its format.
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 describes a full CRUD collection ('creating, viewing, updating, and deleting Integration Configurations') rather than the retrieve/read operation the tool name indicates. It is effectively boilerplate that does not identify what this specific endpoint returns or how it differs from siblings like integrations_configs_retrieve or integrations_configs_list.
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 endpoint versus the many sibling retrieve tools (integrations_configs_retrieve, integrations_configs_object_retrieve, etc.). No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.