ciso_assistant_api_privacy_purposes_legal_basis_retrieveRetrieves the legal basis for privacy purposes through the CISO Assistant API, helping you review how processing activities are justified.
API endpoint that allows purposes 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?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, yet the description says the endpoint allows purposes to be "viewed or edited", implying a write capability that the structured data explicitly denies. Nothing is added about what the legal-basis payload contains or any auth/permission requirements.
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?
A single short sentence with no padding, so it is appropriately sized and front-loaded. The problem is that the brevity comes from boilerplate rather than from focused content.
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 output schema and no explanation of the return value, an agent has no idea this likely yields a list of GDPR legal-basis options (e.g. consent, contract, legal obligation). For a choices/enumeration-style lookup endpoint, the description should at least say what comes back.
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 and the schema is an empty object, so there is no parameter semantics for the description to explain. Baseline 4 applies; the description introduces no misleading parameter hints.
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?
"API endpoint that allows purposes to be viewed or edited" restates the tool name (privacy_purposes ... retrieve) without saying what a "legal basis" is or what the endpoint actually returns. It does not differentiate this from the many sibling purposes endpoints (privacy_purposes_retrieve, privacy_purposes_list, privacy_purposes_object_retrieve, privacy_purposes_article_9_condition_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?
There is no statement of when to call this versus the sibling privacy_purposes_retrieve, privacy_purposes_list, or privacy_purposes_article_9_condition_retrieve endpoints. The only usage signal is the vague "viewed or edited", which does not tell an agent which situation selects this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.