ciso_assistant_api_reference_controls_csf_function_retrieveRetrieve CSF function mappings for reference controls to inspect how controls align with the NIST Cybersecurity Framework.
API endpoint that allows reference controls 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, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true, yet the description says the endpoint 'allows reference controls to be viewed or edited', implying write capability on a GET-only retrieve. This directly contradicts the structured safety metadata and could lead an agent to attempt a mutation.
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 nothing is bloated, but it is boilerplate that carries no tool-specific information. Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than disciplined concision.
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 was the only place to say what this retrieve returns (presumably the list of CSF function choices for reference controls). It says nothing about the return shape, and the 'or edited' phrasing leaves the agent unsure whether the call is safe.
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 the schema has nothing to document and the baseline is 4. Nothing in the description is needed to explain invocation, though it also adds no meaning about what the empty-input call yields.
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 is generic DRF boilerplate ('API endpoint that allows reference controls to be viewed or edited') and never mentions the 'csf function' aspect that distinguishes this tool from the many sibling reference_controls_* endpoints (category_retrieve, provider_retrieve, object_retrieve). It restates a vague version of the name without stating what resource is actually returned.
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 indication of when to call this versus ciso_assistant_api_reference_controls_retrieve, _category_retrieve or _provider_retrieve. An agent has no signal that this endpoint most likely exposes the CSF-function enumeration values used to populate that field.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.