ciso_assistant_api_metrology_custom_metric_samples_retrieveRetrieve a custom metric sample by ID, with unauthorized related fields automatically masked to protect sensitive 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 cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the description's job is narrower, and it delivers a genuinely non-obvious trait: related fields the caller is not authorized to see are masked in the response rather than erroring. It doesn't say whether masking is shape-preserving or what a missing id returns, but the disclosure is real added value.
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, but the brevity comes from omission rather than discipline: the one sentence spends its budget on response masking while leaving purpose and the id parameter unaddressed.
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?
For a by-id read with an undocumented parameter and no output schema, the description should at minimum identify the entity, the id semantics, and what the returned object broadly contains. None of that is present, and the relationship to the custom vs builtin metric sample families is unstated.
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?
One required parameter (id) with 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the full burden and provides nothing — not the id's type/format, nor whether it identifies a sample, a metric instance, or a metric definition. A caller cannot tell what to pass from the definition alone.
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 (a custom metric sample). The resource is identifiable only from the tool name; the description itself conveys the return cardinality and nothing about what is retrieved, and it does not distinguish this from the sibling list/object_retrieve/cascade_info variants.
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?
No when-to-use guidance at all: nothing explains how this differs from custom_metric_samples_list, _object_retrieve, or the builtin_metric_samples equivalents. The agent must infer from the name that this is a by-id fetch, with no stated preconditions or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.