ciso_assistant_api_perimeters_object_retrieveRetrieve a specific perimeter by ID from CISO Assistant to review its details, configuration, and compliance scope.
API endpoint that allows perimeters to be viewed or edited.
| 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?
The description claims the endpoint allows perimeters to be 'viewed or edited', but annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. Claiming edit capability directly contradicts the read-only annotation, leaving the agent confused about whether this call can mutate data.
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 short sentence, so there is no bloat, but the content is boilerplate rather than front-loaded substance. Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than efficiency.
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 information about what a perimeter record contains or how the lookup by id behaves (e.g., 404 if missing), the description is too thin for an agent to call the tool reliably. It omits everything the structured fields do not already carry.
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 schema has a single required 'id' parameter with 0% description coverage, and the description never mentions it, its expected format (e.g., UUID), or how to obtain it. The description adds no meaning beyond the bare schema.
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 uses the vague verb pair 'viewed or edited', which is essentially a restatement of a generic DRF endpoint docstring. It does nothing to distinguish this object_retrieve endpoint from the many sibling tools such as ciso_assistant_api_perimeters_retrieve, _list, 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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the listed/retrieve/object_retrieve siblings, no preconditions, and no exclusions. The agent must infer everything from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.