ciso_assistant_api_metrology_metric_instances_collection_frequency_retrieveRetrieves the collection frequency for metric instances in CISO Assistant metrology so you can verify how often compliance metrics are gathered.
api_metrology_metric_instances_collection_frequency_retrieve
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no mention of what frequency dimension is returned, what the openWorld behavior implies, or any pagination/format context, which is exactly the kind of value the description should add on top of annotations.
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 raw identifier is nominally short but is under-specification, not conciseness: there is no front-loaded statement of purpose and nothing for the remaining sentences to earn a place. It is sized like an ID, not like a description.
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?
With no output schema and no parameters, the description is the only source of information about what this endpoint returns (a frequency breakdown of metric instances, presumably by some dimension), yet it explains none of that. An agent cannot predict the response shape, the granularity options, or the result semantics.
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 input schema has zero parameters and 100% coverage, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. Baseline 4 applies; the description neither adds nor omits parameter meaning.
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 the tool name restated verbatim in snake_case, which is a tautology rather than an explanation. Only the segments of the identifier ('metrology metric instances' ... 'frequency') hint that it retrieves a frequency/aggregation for metric instances, but the description itself states no verb or resource in readable form and offers no differentiation from siblings like ciso_assistant_api_metrology_metric_instances_status_retrieve or _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?
No indication of when to call this tool, when not to, or which sibling to prefer (e.g. metric_instances_list vs status_retrieve vs this frequency endpoint). The agent must infer usage entirely from the identifier string.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.