ciso_assistant_api_risk_assessments_status_retrieveRetrieves the status of a risk assessment via the CISO Assistant API, letting you check its current state before reviewing or updating it.
API endpoint that allows risk 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 risk assessments to be viewed or edited', while annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. Claiming edit capability directly contradicts the read-only annotation and could lead an agent to expect a mutation surface that does not exist.
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 padding, so it is not verbose. However, its brevity comes from being generic rather than from being efficient — the one sentence carries almost no information specific to this endpoint.
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 input parameters and read-only/idempotent annotations already supplied, the structured fields cover most of what an agent needs to invoke it safely. What remains missing is what the 'status' resource actually returns (a status vocabulary likely including enums such as draft/in_review/deprecated), which the description should supply since there is no output schema.
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 and the schema has no properties, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. A 0-param baseline of 4 is appropriate; no parameter commentary is required.
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 boilerplate meaning of 'retrieve' against the resource 'risk assessments', but the distinguishing element in the tool name — that this is the STATUS endpoint (returning the status vocabulary for risk assessments) — is never mentioned. It is indistinguishable from risk_assessments_retrieve, per_status_retrieve, or cascade_info_retrieve without opening the schema.
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 statement, no alternatives named, no prerequisites. With dozens of sibling risk_assessments_* tools, an agent gets no signal about when this endpoint (status lookup) is the right choice over risk_assessments_retrieve or per_status_retrieve.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.