ciso_assistant_api_privacy_data_transfers_object_retrieveRetrieve a privacy data transfer object by ID to inspect transfer details for compliance and risk review.
API endpoint that allows data transfers to be viewed or edited.
| 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 declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, yet the description says the endpoint allows data transfers to be 'edited'. That is a direct contradiction of the declared read-only profile, and nothing else (auth, scope, return shape) is disclosed. Flagged as Annotation Contradiction.
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 sentence, so there is no bloat, but it is boilerplate that conveys almost no information. Brevity here comes from omission rather than efficiency.
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?
A retrieve-by-id tool with no output schema, no parameter documentation, and annotations that the description contradicts. An agent cannot tell from this text what calling it returns or which sibling it supersedes.
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?
Schema coverage is 0% and the description says nothing about the single required 'id' parameter — not its type, format, or what entity it identifies. The description adds zero meaning beyond the schema.
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?
Says 'data transfers' as the resource but the verb is hedged as 'viewed or edited', which does not match a retrieve-by-id endpoint. The description is a generic boilerplate line that does not distinguish this from the many sibling *_retrieve / *_object_retrieve tools for the same resource.
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 mention of the sibling list endpoint, the object_retrieve variant, or the related *_retrieve endpoint for data transfers. The agent gets no signal about which of the near-identical siblings to call.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.