ciso_assistant_api_requirement_assessments_status_retrieveRetrieve the status of requirement assessments to track compliance progress and identify which assessments are complete, pending, or need review.
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 says the endpoint allows requirement assessments to be 'viewed or edited,' which contradicts the readOnlyHint=true annotation and the retrieve nature of the tool. With no annotations needed for safety, a retrieve endpoint should not describe an edit capability.
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 sentence with no wasted words, but it is under-specified rather than concise in a useful way. The sentence does not front-load the specific status-retrieval purpose.
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 parameters and no output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining the return value and scope, yet it does not say whether this returns status choices, assessment statuses, or something else. The vague 'viewed or edited' phrase leaves the agent without the context needed to distinguish it from sibling tools.
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 there is no parameter semantics to explain; the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4. The description offers no additional parameter context, but none is expected.
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 generically as an endpoint allowing requirement assessments to be viewed or edited, which does not explain what the status-retrieve variant specifically returns (likely the available status choices). It names the resource but not the actual operation, leaving it hard to distinguish from requirement_assessments_retrieve or per_status_retrieve.
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 is given on when to use this endpoint versus the many sibling requirement-assessment tools such as retrieve, list, per_status_retrieve, or result_retrieve. The only implied usage is the vague phrase 'viewed or edited,' which is not actionable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.