ciso_assistant_api_privacy_data_recipients_retrieveRetrieves a single privacy data recipient by ID, masking unauthorized fields so users see only permitted 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 cover the read-only/idempotent/non-destructive profile, so the bar is lower, and the description adds a genuinely non-obvious trait: related fields are masked for unauthorized users. It does not say which fields get masked or what the caller needs to see them unmasked, but the permission-dependent output disclosure is real value beyond the annotations.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity comes partly from under-specification rather than from tight editing.
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 simple one-parameter retrieve with no output schema, the description covers the masking caveat but leaves the identifier format and the returned object's fields entirely undocumented. Adequate but with clear gaps an agent would hit on first call.
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?
There is one required parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the schema gives no hint about what `id` refers to (UUID? numeric? ref_id?). The description mentions returning "a single object" but never explains the identifier, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 "Return a single object," which is a verb and a return shape but never names the resource; the resource (privacy data recipient) is only conveyed by the tool name and title. It is distinguishable from the list/create/destroy siblings only through the name, not the prose.
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 statement of when to use this versus ciso_assistant_api_privacy_data_recipients_object_retrieve, _list, or _retrieve alternatives. The agent must infer that this is a by-id single fetch from the schema alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.