ciso_assistant_api_privacy_data_subjects_retrieveRetrieves a single privacy data subject by ID while masking unauthorized fields, so CISO Assistant users see only permitted data.
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=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description does add one genuine behavioral fact not in the annotations — that unauthorized related fields are masked — but it does not say what triggers masking (roles/permissions), which fields are affected, or what the masked shape looks like.
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?
One short front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, but the brevity comes from omission rather than precision. It is efficient yet underspecified.
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 should carry weight on the return contract, and it gives only the masking caveat. Combined with an undocumented required parameter and ambiguous siblings, an agent still lacks enough to call this confidently.
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 single required `id` parameter has 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it — no format, no source for the identifier, no behavior on not-found or unauthorized ids. With the schema doing none of the work, the description needed to compensate and does not.
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 sentence restates the retrieve verb ("Return a single object") without ever naming the resource — data subject — leaving the resource identity to the tool name alone. It also fails to distinguish this endpoint from the sibling ciso_assistant_api_privacy_data_subjects_object_retrieve, which an agent cannot tell apart from this one based on the text.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the list, object_retrieve, or cascade_info siblings, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage entirely from the naming convention.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.