ciso_assistant_api_journeys_retrieveRetrieve a single journey by ID from CISO Assistant, returning one object with unauthorized related fields masked for controlled access.
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 establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful behavioral context by noting that unauthorized related fields are masked, which tells the agent that the returned object may be permission-filtered.
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?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is concise and every clause contributes, though it could have used a few more words to name the resource being retrieved.
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?
Given the simple input schema and rich annotations, the description is somewhat adequate, but it omits the core resource being retrieved and provides no differentiation from the many sibling journey endpoints. For a retrieve tool in this dense API surface, that leaves a meaningful gap.
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% and the description says nothing about the required id parameter. With only one parameter the ambiguity is limited, but the description does not clarify what kind of ID is expected or add meaning beyond the bare schema.
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 "Return a single object" but never names the resource (a journey), so it only vaguely conveys the tool's purpose. The name and title supply the missing context, but the description itself does not distinguish this from sibling journeys_object_retrieve or journeys_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 tool versus the sibling journeys_object_retrieve, journeys_list, or other journey endpoints. It neither states prerequisites nor explains when a single-object retrieve is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.