ciso_assistant_api_risk_acceptances_to_review_retrieveRetrieve risk acceptances awaiting review to inspect pending approvals and determine the next action.
API endpoint that allows risk acceptance 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 lets a risk acceptance be 'edited', while annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. That is a direct conflict, and the description otherwise adds nothing about scope, filtering, or return shape beyond what annotations already state.
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, so it is not bloated, but the sentence is filler boilerplate rather than front-loaded substance. Brevity here comes from under-specification, not from efficient communication.
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 carries more burden, yet it says nothing about what records are returned, how the 'to review' set is determined, or pagination. For a read endpoint that is one of many similarly named siblings, this leaves the agent without enough to call it confidently.
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 nothing for the description to clarify and the baseline of 4 applies. However, the description does not indicate whether this endpoint is implicitly scoped to the current user's review queue, which would have been the one useful semantic note.
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 risk acceptance to be viewed or edited' — which merely restates the resource already named in the tool name. It never explains the distinguishing semantic of this endpoint versus siblings such as risk_acceptances_list, risk_acceptances_waiting_retrieve, or risk_acceptances_retrieve: namely what 'to review' means as a filter/state.
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 when-to-use guidance is given at all. With several near-identical siblings (list, waiting_retrieve, state_retrieve, retrieve), an agent has no stated basis for choosing this endpoint over them; the only hint is the name suffix, not the description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.