ciso_assistant_api_metrology_metric_instances_retrieveRetrieve a single metric instance by ID, returning masked related fields when access is unauthorized.
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 and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuine, non-obvious behavioral detail: unauthorized related fields are masked in the response. It stops short of saying what counts as 'unauthorized', whether masking is user-dependent, or what happens for a nonexistent id.
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 padding or boilerplate; it is appropriately sized, though its brevity comes at the cost of the missing resource and id context noted elsewhere.
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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description should at minimum name the returned entity and clarify how the id is obtained. As written it covers only masking, leaving the agent to infer the resource from the tool name and the id semantics from nothing.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the single required parameter 'id' is an undescribed string. The description says nothing about what the id identifies or its format, so neither structured nor prose documentation explains the one input the agent must supply.
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?
"Return a single object" restates the name's 'retrieve' without naming the resource (metrology metric instance) or stating that lookup is by id. The only substantive content, the field masking, describes output handling rather than the tool's purpose, so an agent must rely entirely on the auto-generated name to know what entity it fetches.
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 use this versus the many adjacent siblings such as metric_instances_list, metric_instances_object_retrieve, or metric_instances_cascade_info_retrieve. The distinction between 'retrieve' and 'object_retrieve' is exactly what an agent needs here and it is left entirely unaddressed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.