ciso_assistant_api_perimeters_retrieveRetrieve a perimeter by ID and return one object with unauthorized related fields masked, enabling permission-aware access to perimeter details.
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, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral trait beyond that: related fields the caller is not authorized to see are masked in the response. It does not say which fields get masked or what the response looks like, so the added value is real but thin.
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?
One short sentence with no padding, and the notable bit (masking) is not buried. It is efficient, though it spends its only sentence on a detail rather than the core purpose.
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 read-only single-object fetch with no output schema, the description covers the masking caveat but leaves the returned shape, error behavior, and the identity of the resource implicit. Adequate but with clear gaps for an agent deciding between the several perimeters retrieve variants.
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 'id' property has no documented type, meaning, or format. The description does nothing to compensate – it never ties the required id to a perimeter identifier (e.g. UUID), which is exactly the gap it should fill at this coverage level.
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 sentence 'Return a single object' names a verb and cardinality, but never states the resource (a perimeter) or acknowledges the many siblings such as perimeters_object_retrieve, perimeters_list, or perimeters_names_retrieve. An agent must rely on the tool name alone to know what is retrieved.
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 on when to use this instead of perimeters_list, perimeters_object_retrieve, or perimeters_cascade_info_retrieve. There is no mention of prerequisites, required ID format, or what happens on a missing/inaccessible record.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.