ciso_assistant_api_risk_matrices_ids_retrieveRetrieve a specific risk matrix by ID from CISO Assistant to view its probability and impact scales. Use it to inspect risk scoring definitions before mapping or assessing risks.
API endpoint that allows risk matrices 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 matrices to be "edited", while annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. This is the classic DRF boilerplate that misdescribes a read-only GET endpoint and gives the agent a false impression of write capability.
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?
One short sentence with no padding, which is structurally clean. But "API endpoint that allows" is pure filler, and the sentence is too thin to be informative rather than merely short.
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 should convey what a risk matrix record looks like or what the identifier refers to; it conveys neither. It also omits the id path semantics implied by "ids" — though the empty input schema suggests the id is implicit in the invocation, which is never explained.
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 are no parameter semantics to explain; the baseline of 4 applies. The description neither helps nor hurts here.
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?
"API endpoint that allows risk matrices to be viewed or edited" largely restates the tool name and title, and the paired verbs "viewed or edited" blur what the call actually does. With siblings like risk_matrices_retrieve, risk_matrices_object_retrieve and risk_matrices_ids_retrieve in the same namespace, the agent gets no basis to tell this one apart.
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 condition for use, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives, despite an extremely crowded risk_matrices_* family. An agent has to guess where this fits relative to list/retrieve/object_retrieve.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.