ciso_assistant_api_journey_steps_retrieveRetrieve a single compliance journey step by ID, returning only authorized fields and masking unauthorized related 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 readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add one genuinely useful behavioral detail beyond that — unauthorized related fields are masked — but says nothing about missing-ID behavior, error responses, or what 'unauthorized' 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 sentence with no filler, so nothing is wasted, but its brevity comes from omission rather than efficiency. The one distinguishing fact (field masking) is present but the core subject is never stated.
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 exists, so the description must carry the return-value burden; 'a single object' plus masking is not enough for an agent to know what fields a journey step exposes. Combined with an undocumented id parameter and no annotation gaps covered, the definition is under-specified for a lookup tool.
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?
There is one required parameter at 0% schema description coverage: the schema only shows 'id: string' with no format or source. The description does not mention the id at all, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap — is it a UUID, a slug, a composite key?
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 sentence 'Return a single object' is nearly a restatement of 'retrieve' and never names the resource (a journey step). An agent cannot tell from the description alone what entity is being fetched, let alone distinguish this from sibling retrieves like journey_steps_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?
There is no statement of when to use this versus journey_steps_list, journey_steps_object_retrieve, or journey_steps_cascade_info_retrieve. Usage is only inferable from the tool name suffix.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.