ciso_assistant_api_reference_controls_syncable_applied_controls_retrieveFetches syncable applied controls for a specified reference control by ID, so you can review which applied controls can be synchronized.
API endpoint that allows reference controls to be viewed or edited.
| 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?
The description says the endpoint allows reference controls to be 'viewed or edited', but annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. Claiming an edit capability on a read-only, idempotent endpoint is a direct contradiction of the structured safety profile, and nothing is said about what the syncable-applied-controls projection actually returns.
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, front-loaded sentence with no padding, so structurally it is fine. The problem is that the one sentence spent is boilerplate that does not carry the tool's actual meaning.
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 exists, so the description needed to convey what a 'syncable applied control' record is and how it relates to a reference control; it does neither. Combined with an undocumented id parameter, an agent has essentially nothing beyond the tool name to call this correctly.
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 coverage is 0% for the single required 'id' parameter, and the description does not say whether that id identifies a reference control, an applied control, or a sync pair. With only one parameter and no schema documentation, the description was the only place this could be clarified and it was not.
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 the generic DRF boilerplate 'API endpoint that allows reference controls to be viewed or edited' and never mentions the distinguishing concept in the tool name: which applied controls are syncable to a given reference control. It describes a different resource (reference controls) than the sibling ciso_assistant_api_reference_controls_retrieve already covers, so an agent cannot tell the two apart or infer what 'syncable' filters on.
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 call this versus ciso_assistant_api_reference_controls_retrieve, _object_retrieve, or the write-side ciso_assistant_api_reference_controls_sync_applied_controls_create. The one implied usage cue ('viewed or edited') points toward the wrong operation and the wrong sibling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.