ciso_assistant_api_perimeters_lc_status_retrieveRetrieve lifecycle status for perimeters through the CISO Assistant API to verify current perimeter states and support compliance tracking.
API endpoint that allows perimeters to be viewed or edited.
| 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?
The description says perimeters can be 'edited', while annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. That is a direct contradiction, and the description adds no real behavioral context about what this retrieve endpoint returns.
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?
The description is a single sentence, so it is concise and front-loaded. However, that sentence is generic boilerplate and contains a misleading claim, so it does not fully earn its place.
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, the description should explain that this endpoint likely returns lifecycle status choices. Instead, it omits the meaning of 'lc_status' entirely and gives no return-value context, leaving an agent unable to understand the endpoint's result.
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 tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline for a 0-parameter tool is 4, and the description does not need to compensate for missing schema coverage here.
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 names the resource ('perimeters') but not the actual subject of the endpoint: the lifecycle status ('lc_status') collection. 'Viewed or edited' is generic DRF boilerplate that does not distinguish this tool from perimeters_retrieve, perimeters_list, or perimeters_object_retrieve.
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 guidance is given on when to call this endpoint versus the many sibling perimeters endpoints. An agent has no basis for choosing this over perimeters_retrieve or perimeters_list from the description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.