ciso_assistant_api_privacy_right_requests_retrieveRetrieve a privacy rights request by ID, returning only permitted fields with unauthorized data masked.
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, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: unauthorized related fields are masked in the response, which tells the agent to expect partial/null data and not to treat it as corrupted — a useful disclosure beyond annotations.
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 efficient sentence with zero waste, but the masking behavior is stated before the tool's core resource identity, so the sentence is under-specified rather than front-loaded on what is being retrieved.
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?
No output schema and no annotations beyond the safety profile, so the description must carry more. It covers the notable masking twist but omits id format/source and any hint of the returned fields, leaving gaps for a one-parameter read tool.
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?
There is one required parameter (id) with 0% schema description coverage, so the schema provides no meaning. The description does not say what the id is (UUID, integer, ref_id), where to obtain it, or whether it must be a privacy right request id rather than an object/owner id.
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, which is a generic retrieve verb, but never names the resource (privacy right request) — that information lives only in the tool name. With many *_retrieve siblings (privacy_right_requests_object_retrieve, _list, etc.), there is no differentiation of when this one applies.
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 call this versus the sibling privacy_right_requests_object_retrieve, privacy_right_requests_list, or privacy_right_requests_cascade_info_retrieve. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.