ciso_assistant_api_privacy_personal_data_retrieveFetch a single privacy personal data record by ID while masking unauthorized fields, enabling secure access to sensitive data for compliance workflows.
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, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond the annotations: unauthorized related fields are masked, warning the agent that the response is field-filtered. It stops there, giving no detail on which fields, or what an unauthorized caller actually receives.
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 with no filler and no repetition of the title. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly the result of under-specification rather than disciplined 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 lookup tool the bar is low, but with no output schema and zero parameter documentation in the schema, the description should at least identify the target resource, the identifier type, and the authorization behavior behind the masking. It omits all three, leaving the masking clause as the only substantive content.
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 schema has one required parameter, id, with 0% description coverage, so the description is the only place semantics could be supplied. It never mentions the id or what kind of identifier is expected (personal-data record UUID vs. reference), leaving the single parameter unexplained.
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 it returns 'a single object' but never names the resource (personal data), relying entirely on the tool name to convey what is returned. The masking clause does add a distinguishing scoping detail, but the operative verb+resource is generic and not differentiated from the sibling object_retrieve.
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 use this instead of ciso_assistant_api_privacy_personal_data_object_retrieve, list, or any other retrieval sibling. There is no statement of prerequisites, required permissions, or what happens if the id is missing or the caller lacks access.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.