ciso_assistant_api_pmbok_accreditations_retrieveRetrieve a PMBOK accreditation by ID and return its details with unauthorized fields masked, so you can review accreditation data while protecting restricted information.
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, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a useful behavioral detail beyond annotations: unauthorized related fields are masked. It remains thin on auth prerequisites, not-found behavior, and what 'related fields' means.
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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The terseness is efficient, though some terseness comes at the cost of missing essential context rather than being purely concise.
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 retrieve-by-id tool with no output schema and many similar sibling tools, the description is not complete enough. It omits what an accreditation object contains, how it differs from object_retrieve/list, and what the id format is, leaving the agent to infer critical selection details.
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 description adds no information about the sole 'id' parameter, such as expected format or whether it is a UUID. The parameter name is self-explanatory enough to avoid a 1, but the description does not compensate for the undocumented 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 states a generic action and shape ('Return a single object') but never names the resource (PMBOK accreditations). It implies single-record retrieval and contrasts implicitly with list-style siblings, but does not distinguish this from object_retrieve or cascade_info_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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling retrieval tools, nor any prerequisite or context requirement. The only implied usage is 'retrieve one by id', which an agent must infer from the schema and name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.