ciso_assistant_api_integrations_configs_retrieveRetrieve a single integration configuration with unauthorized fields masked, so you can inspect settings without exposing restricted data.
Return a single object with unauthorized related fields masked.
| 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, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact not in the annotations — that unauthorized related fields are masked in the response — but says nothing about permission requirements, not-found behavior, or what the masking depends on.
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 filler and the behavioral caveat front-loaded. It is efficiently written; the problem is under-specification rather than verbosity.
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 no output schema and no parameter documentation, the description should at least identify the resource being retrieved and the meaning of the id. It leaves the agent unable to distinguish this from sibling retrieve/object_retrieve tools or to know what the returned object represents.
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% for the single 'id' parameter, and the description adds nothing about its type, format, or where the id comes from. Since the schema documents nothing, the description needed to compensate and does not.
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 says only that it returns "a single object" without naming the resource (an integration config) that the tool name implies. With siblings like integrations_configs_list, integrations_configs_object_retrieve, and integrations_configs_retrieve, the agent gets no basis for telling them apart from this text.
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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no named alternative such as the list endpoint or the object_retrieve variant. At best, retrieval-by-id is weakly implied by the required 'id' parameter and the word 'Return'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.