ciso_assistant_api_metrology_builtin_metric_samples_retrieveRetrieve a built-in metric sample by ID, returning one object with unauthorized fields masked for metrology data 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 declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful trait beyond that: unauthorized related fields are masked, so output is permission-dependent. It says nothing about error behavior (e.g., unknown id), pagination, or what the object contains.
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, so it is efficient, but it is under-specified rather than concise; the one useful fact (field masking) is not front-loaded alongside any statement of what is being fetched.
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?
This is a retrieve-by-id tool with no output schema and a completely undocumented parameter, so the description carries the full burden. Aside from the masking note, it omits the resource identity, the ID semantics, and what a caller gets back, leaving the agent guessing.
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 schema has one required parameter 'id' with 0% description coverage, and the description never mentions it – no indication of whether it is a numeric PK, UUID, or ref string. The description does not 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 states a retrieval of "a single object" but never names the resource (builtin metric sample) or says it is keyed by ID; the resource is only inferable from the tool name. It does distinguish itself somewhat from the list/for_object siblings by emphasizing a single object, but the purpose is vague.
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 when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as ciso_assistant_api_metrology_builtin_metric_samples_list or _for_object_retrieve, which the agent must choose between. Nothing indicates prerequisites for the lookup.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.