ciso_assistant_api_pmbok_responsibility_matrix_activities_retrieveRetrieve a PMBOK responsibility matrix activity by ID, with unauthorized fields masked, to review assigned roles and responsibilities securely.
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 safety is covered. The description does add one genuine behavioral trait not in the annotations — related fields are masked when the caller is unauthorized — which is useful context. It stops short of saying which fields are masked, whether masking is silent or flagged, or how a missing/inaccessible id behaves.
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 filler, so nothing is wasted — but it is under-specified rather than concise. There is no front-loaded statement of what is being retrieved.
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 and full annotation coverage, the description covers the notable output caveat (masking) but omits what the returned object represents and what the id refers to. Marginal but not adequate on its own.
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` with 0% description coverage, and the description never mentions it. The agent must infer that `id` identifies a responsibility-matrix activity, and nothing clarifies whether it is a numeric PK, UUID, or ref string.
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 retrieve action already implied by the name/title and never names the resource (a PMBOK responsibility matrix activity). The only distinguishing content is the masking note, so an agent must rely on the tool name to know what it fetches, and it cannot tell this apart from the sibling *_object_retrieve or *_list tools.
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 call this versus the closely named siblings (pmbok_responsibility_matrix_activities_object_retrieve, _list, _cascade_info_retrieve) which all sit in the same namespace. The masking clause implies permission-scoped reads but gives no actionable selection guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.