ciso_assistant_api_privacy_right_requests_owner_retrieveRetrieve the owner assigned to a privacy right request to track and manage data subject access requests.
API endpoint that allows right requests 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 annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description claims the endpoint allows right requests to be 'edited', which implies mutation. This directly contradicts the read-only annotation and gives no genuine behavioral detail beyond it.
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 a single short sentence with no padding, so it is concise. However, the brevity comes at the cost of substance — the one sentence is boilerplate rather than a front-loaded statement of what the tool returns.
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, the description carries the burden of explaining what a caller receives, and it fails to do so — it never clarifies what an 'owner' result for a privacy right request contains or how it differs from the base retrieve. For a zero-parameter read endpoint this is a significant omission.
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 disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The empty schema and additionalProperties=false leave no ambiguity about the call shape.
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 restates generic DRF boilerplate ('allows right requests to be viewed or edited') without explaining what the 'owner' sub-resource of this endpoint actually returns. It does not distinguish this tool from the many adjacent siblings such as privacy_right_requests_retrieve, _list, _object_retrieve, or _request_type_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 when-to-use guidance is given; an agent cannot tell whether to call this instead of privacy_right_requests_retrieve or _object_retrieve. The only implied usage ('view right requests') is too generic to route between siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.