ciso_assistant_api_requirement_nodes_object_retrieveRetrieves a requirement node by ID from CISO Assistant so you can inspect its details for compliance mapping and GRC analysis.
API endpoint that allows requirements 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 annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description says the endpoint allows requirements to be "edited" — directly contradicting the structured read-only declaration. Beyond that contradiction there is no information about permissions, response shape, or scoping.
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, but it is boilerplate that carries essentially no 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?
No output schema, no explanation of the required id, no clarification of resource semantics, and a claim of editability that conflicts with annotations. Nothing an agent needs to call this 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?
The single required parameter `id` has 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it. With one undocumented identifier parameter, the description must explain its meaning (e.g., requirement node UUID) and does 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 endpoint in generic DRF boilerplate ("API endpoint that allows requirements to be viewed or edited") without stating the specific resource (requirement nodes) or that this is a single-object fetch by id. An agent cannot distinguish it from the many sibling requirement-node tools (`requirement_nodes_retrieve`, `requirement_nodes_update`, `requirement_nodes_list`) without reading the schemas.
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 use this tool versus `requirement_nodes_list`, `requirement_nodes_object_retrieve`, `requirement_nodes_partial_update`, or `requirement_nodes_update`. The only implied guidance ("viewed") is undercut by "edited", leaving no reliable selection heuristic.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.