ciso_assistant_api_privacy_data_transfers_country_retrieveRetrieve country-specific privacy data transfer records for reviewing cross-border transfer compliance and related details.
API endpoint that allows data transfers 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 says the endpoint allows data transfers to be 'viewed or edited,' while the annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false and the tool name is a retrieve operation. This is a direct contradiction: an agent may believe editing is possible through this endpoint when the structured metadata says it is read-only. Because the description contradicts annotations, the score is 1.
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?
The description is a single short sentence, so it is concise and front-loaded. However, its brevity comes at the cost of usefulness: it spends its only sentence on a generic and partly misleading statement rather than identifying the country-retrieval purpose.
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?
The tool has no input parameters and no output schema, so the description should explain what country-related data is returned and how the endpoint fits among the many privacy data-transfer siblings. Instead it gives only a generic 'viewed or edited' statement, leaving an agent unable to know what retrieval result to expect.
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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is no parameter information for the description to add or omit, and the empty schema is consistent with the tool definition.
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 only that this is an 'API endpoint that allows data transfers to be viewed or edited.' It does not identify the country-specific retrieval function, nor does it distinguish this tool from sibling data-transfer list/retrieve/update endpoints. The name says 'country_retrieve' but the description does not explain what country data is returned.
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 guidance on when to use this endpoint, when not to use it, or which sibling tools to choose instead. The phrase 'viewed or edited' is especially unhelpful because the tool is a retrieve endpoint and provides no context for selecting it over list/retrieve alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.