ciso_assistant_api_managed_documents_object_retrieveRetrieve a specific managed document by ID to view or edit compliance documentation within the CISO Assistant GRC platform.
API endpoint that allows managed documents to be viewed or edited.
| 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 annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description says the endpoint allows managed documents to be 'viewed or edited,' implying mutation. With annotations present, the description should add precision rather than contradict the declared safety profile.
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 padding. It is concise, though its brevity contributes to the ambiguity rather than resolving it.
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 should clarify what is returned, but it only says documents can be 'viewed or edited.' It lacks the single-record retrieval context, parameter meaning, and an accurate read-only characterization.
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 sole required parameter 'id' has 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not explain what the id identifies, its expected format, or whether it is a UUID, slug, or numeric identifier. With one obvious parameter, this is not completely absent, but it fails to compensate for the schema gap.
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 restates the endpoint name with vague wording: 'allows managed documents to be viewed or edited.' It does not clearly say this retrieves a single managed document by identifier, nor distinguish it from siblings such as managed_documents_retrieve, managed_documents_list, or managed_documents_update.
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 alternatives like managed_documents_list or managed_documents_retrieve. The intended usage is only implied by the tool name and common REST conventions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.