ciso_assistant_api_metrology_metric_definitions_createCreates a metrology metric definition in CISO Assistant to define how security metrics are measured and tracked. Use it to register new metric definitions through the API.
api_metrology_metric_definitions_create
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | No |
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=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered without the description. However the description adds nothing beyond that — no note on required auth, side effects of creating a definition, whether it registers samples, or validation failures. Consistent with annotations, just empty.
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?
It is a single token, so there is no filler to trim, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. Nothing is front-loaded because nothing is said.
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?
A mutation tool writing to an open-world API with an unconstrained body object and no output schema. The description must at minimum explain the payload shape and effect; it explains neither, leaving the agent unable to call it correctly.
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 single parameter 'body' is a free-form object with 0% schema description coverage, and the description says nothing about what fields the body expects (name, category, provider, unit, etc.). With an opaque untyped payload, the description is the only possible source of parameter meaning and it provides none.
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 is literally the tool identifier with underscores stripped of meaning: 'api_metrology_metric_definitions_create'. It restates the name and title rather than stating in prose that this creates a metric definition resource, adding no scope, target, or distinction from siblings like ..._partial_update or ..._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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, no alternatives named. An agent must infer from the name alone that this is a create operation and cannot tell when to pick it over the metric-instance or dashboard-widget create siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.