ciso_assistant_api_policies_csf_function_retrieveRetrieve the CSF function mapped to a specific policy, helping users inspect framework alignment for compliance and risk assessments.
API endpoint that allows applied controls to be viewed or edited.
| 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 declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, yet the description claims the endpoint allows records to be "edited." That directly contradicts the read-only annotation and would mislead an agent into expecting mutation capability. No other behavioral context (return shape, choice-list semantics) is offered.
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 it is unconsumed boilerplate that is front-loaded with the wrong resource. Conciseness without accuracy does not earn more than a mid score.
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 no-parameter, no-output-schema read endpoint, the description should at minimum say it returns the list of CSF function values for policies. Instead it names the wrong domain object, leaving the agent without the one piece of information it needs to invoke this correctly.
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, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description neither helps nor hurts here, though it also never clarifies that this call is argument-free.
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 says the endpoint lets "applied controls" be "viewed or edited," but the tool name and siblings indicate this is the policies CSF-function choices endpoint. The verb is present but the resource is wrong, so an agent cannot confidently tell what this retrieves or how it differs from ciso_assistant_api_policies_csf_function_retrieve's neighbours like ciso_assistant_api_reference_controls_csf_function_retrieve or ciso_assistant_api_policies_category_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?
No when-to-use guidance, no alternatives, no preconditions. In a sibling set containing both reference-controls and policies CSF-function endpoints, nothing tells the agent which one to call for which purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.