ciso_assistant_api_risk_assessments_action_plan_excel_retrieveRetrieve the Excel action plan for a specific risk assessment by ID through CISO Assistant, so you can review or share mitigation tasks.
API endpoint that allows risk assessments 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?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description says the endpoint allows risk assessments to be 'edited', implying a write path on a read-only tool. Beyond that contradiction it says nothing about the response being a binary Excel file, its filename, or content.
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, but its brevity comes from being boilerplate rather than informative, so it fails to front-load anything useful.
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?
For an export endpoint with no output schema and no annotations explaining the payload, the description should say that it returns an Excel workbook for a given assessment. That essential context is entirely absent.
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?
One required 'id' parameter with 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not say whether it identifies the risk assessment, the action plan, or something else. Nothing is added beyond the bare schema.
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 sentence 'API endpoint that allows risk assessments to be viewed or edited' restates generic DRF boilerplate and never mentions the actual resource in the tool name: the action-plan Excel export for a risk assessment. It does not distinguish this from siblings such as risk_assessments_action_plan_pdf_retrieve or risk_assessments_action_plan_list, and 'viewed or edited' actively misdescribes a retrieve call.
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 call this versus the pdf retrieve, the action_plan_list, or the parent risk assessment retrieve. An agent must infer from the tool name alone that this produces an Excel rendition of the action plan.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.