ciso_assistant_api_risk_assessments_risk_assessment_xlsx_retrieveRetrieve a risk assessment as an XLSX file by ID, enabling download of assessment data for review or reporting.
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?
The description claims the endpoint allows records to be 'viewed or edited', while annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false — a write capability is asserted where none exists. It also never discloses the behavior that matters most here: that the call returns a binary XLSX file rather than a JSON object.
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 sentence with no filler, so it is not bloated, but its brevity comes from carrying no information rather than from precision.
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, the single parameter is undocumented, and the description never states the response format, content type, or what the spreadsheet contains. An agent cannot call this correctly or interpret the result from what is provided.
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?
There is one required parameter ('id') with 0% schema description coverage, and the description adds nothing about it — not whether it is the risk assessment's UUID, an integer PK, or how to obtain it. With zero coverage, the description was obligated to compensate 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 is generic DRF boilerplate ('allows risk assessments to be viewed or edited') that restates the resource name and never mentions the actual operation implied by the tool name: exporting a risk assessment as an XLSX spreadsheet. It is indistinguishable from siblings like risk_assessments_retrieve, risk_assessment_csv_retrieve, or risk_assessment_pdf_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 on when to use this tool versus the CSV, PDF, or plain JSON retrieve variants that sit right next to it in the sibling list. The agent must infer the format choice entirely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.