ciso_assistant_api_pmbok_responsibility_roles_taxonomy_retrieveRetrieves the PMBOK responsibility roles taxonomy from CISO Assistant, enabling mapping of project roles to GRC responsibilities.
api_pmbok_responsibility_roles_taxonomy_retrieve
| 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no indication of whether the taxonomy is a static enum-style lookup or tenant-scoped data, which matters given openWorldHint=true.
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 short, but that brevity is under-specification rather than economy — a bare identifier string with no sentence structure, no front-loaded explanation, and no information that isn't already in the tool name.
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 is the only place an agent could learn what a 'responsibility roles taxonomy' returns (role identifiers, labels, RACI-style codes) and whether it depends on a loaded PMBOK module. It supplies neither, leaving the agent able to call the tool but unable to predict or use its 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 takes zero parameters and the input schema is an empty object with additionalProperties=false at 100% coverage, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. The baseline of 4 applies for a parameterless tool.
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 is the tool name verbatim: "api_pmbok_responsibility_roles_taxonomy_retrieve". It restates the resource (PMBOK responsibility roles taxonomy) but adds no verb-level explanation of what the retrieval yields, and gives no signal to distinguish it from the adjacent ciso_assistant_api_pmbok_responsibility_roles_list, _object_retrieve, or _cascade_info_retrieve siblings.
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 tool, when not to, or which sibling to prefer. In a family with _list, _object_retrieve, and _cascade_info_retrieve variants, the agent is left to infer the choice from the name suffix alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.