ciso_assistant_api_privacy_data_breaches_risk_level_retrieveRetrieve the risk level assigned to privacy data breaches so you can assess breach severity and prioritize compliance response.
API endpoint that allows data breaches 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?
The description claims the endpoint allows data breaches to be 'viewed or edited', while annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. Saying it edits directly contradicts the read-only annotation, and nothing about the actual behavior (returning allowed risk-level values) is disclosed.
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, front-loaded sentence with no padding, but its brevity comes from generic template text rather than from tight expression of useful content.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description must explain that this returns the set of selectable risk levels for a data breach. Instead it leaves the return value completely unspecified and mischaracterizes the operation as editable.
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 schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. Baseline for 0 params applies.
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 restates the resource (data breaches) but says nothing about the 'risk level' facet that distinguishes this tool from siblings like ciso_assistant_api_privacy_data_breaches_breach_type_retrieve, _status_retrieve, _list, and _retrieve. It is essentially boilerplate applied to every endpoint in the family.
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 call this versus the sibling *_retrieve, *_list, *_breach_type_retrieve or *_status_retrieve endpoints. An agent has no way to know this returns an enumeration of risk-level choices rather than a breach record.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.