ciso_assistant_api_requirement_assessments_per_status_retrieveRetrieve requirement assessments filtered by status to monitor compliance progress and identify gaps by assessment state.
API endpoint that allows requirement assessments 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 description claims the endpoint allows assessments "to be viewed or edited," while annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. Claiming edit capability on a declared read-only retrieve endpoint is a direct inconsistency that could lead an agent to attempt a mutation. It also omits the pagination/aggregation behavior implied by "per_status."
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 short sentence with no padding, so it is concise, but the brevity is a symptom of under-specification rather than efficiency — it conveys no information beyond the tool name. Given the size budget available, far more could have been said without bloat.
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 and no parameters to anchor meaning, the description is the only place where the agent could learn what a "per status" response looks like (status counts/grouping) or how it differs from other requirement-assessment endpoints. It provides none of that, leaving the tool effectively indistinguishable from its siblings.
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 schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate at the parameter level. Baseline of 4 applies; no parameter-related value is lost.
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 title almost verbatim ("allows requirement assessments to be viewed or edited") without saying what the endpoint actually returns. It never mentions the "per_status" dimension — the status breakdown/aggregation that distinguishes it from siblings like requirement_assessments_list, requirement_assessments_status_retrieve, and requirement_assessments_retrieve. An agent cannot tell what this endpoint produces versus ten near-identical requirement-assessment siblings.
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 endpoint, when not to, or which sibling to prefer for a plain list, a single object, or an allowed-status list. The only implied usage is "view requirement assessments," which applies equally to several other tools in the same family.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.