ciso_assistant_api_privacy_processings_assigned_to_retrieveRetrieve privacy processing records assigned to the current user from CISO Assistant to review data-processing responsibilities and track privacy tasks.
Generic export mixin for CSV/XLSX exports.
| 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?
Annotations already state readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description should add scope or return-format context; instead it implies a CSV/XLSX file export, which is a different behavior from what the name promises (a filtered list of assigned processings). The one sentence present misdirects rather than informs.
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?
It is one short sentence, so it is not bloated, but conciseness only counts when the content is relevant. The single sentence is boilerplate about an export mixin and contributes no usable information about this endpoint.
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?
With no parameters, no output schema and no annotations explaining scope, the description is the only place to say what 'assigned to' means (current user vs. a user id) and what is returned. It says none of that, leaving the agent unable to call the tool with confidence.
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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter-level gap exists.
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 ('Generic export mixin for CSV/XLSX exports') does not describe this tool at all. The name and title indicate retrieving privacy processings assigned to the current user, but the text describes an internal export mixin, actively misleading the agent about what the call does.
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 alternatives such as ciso_assistant_api_privacy_processings_list or ciso_assistant_api_privacy_processings_export_csv_retrieve, and no indication that this is the 'assigned to me' variant. Nothing helps an agent choose this tool over its many siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.