ciso_assistant_api_reference_controls_createCreate reference controls through the CISO Assistant API to define reusable security controls for compliance and risk management workflows.
API endpoint that allows reference controls to be viewed or edited.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.3.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, i.e. a non-read, non-idempotent write, while the description frames the endpoint as one that lets reference controls be 'viewed'. The description contradicts the annotations instead of adding context such as required permissions or what gets persisted.
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, so not bloated, but it is filler copied from a generic API index rather than a front-loaded statement of purpose. Brevity here comes from under-specification, not economy.
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?
A mutation endpoint with a fully undocumented body and no output schema needs the description to explain payload and consequences; the description explains neither and misdescribes the operation. Essentially nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is present.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the single 'body' parameter is a free-form object with no documented fields anywhere. The description adds nothing about payload shape, required keys, or which reference-control fields can be supplied, leaving the agent with no way to construct a valid request.
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 text restates the tool name ('API endpoint... reference controls') and says it allows records to be 'viewed or edited', which does not state that this tool creates a reference control. It also fails to distinguish it from the long list of sibling reference_controls_* tools (list, retrieve, update, partial_update, destroy).
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 guidance on when to use this versus the siblings. Worse, 'viewed or edited' points an agent toward reading/updating semantics, which is the wrong action for a create endpoint, actively steering selection away from the correct tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.