ciso_assistant_api_risk_scenarios_per_status_retrieveRetrieves risk scenarios filtered by status so you can review and manage them according to each workflow stage.
API endpoint that allows risk scenarios 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?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, yet the description claims the endpoint allows risk scenarios to be 'edited', implying write capability that contradicts the annotation. It also fails to disclose that this is a status-aggregated view rather than a plain object read, and says nothing about return shape or authentication needs.
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 bloat, but the sentence is generic filler that conveys almost nothing. Brevity is fine; the content is the problem.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining what a 'per status' risk scenario result looks like, and it does not do so. With zero parameters the burden is low, but the missing status-aggregation semantics leave a real gap.
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 the baseline is 4; the description neither helps nor hurts parameter understanding. It could, however, have noted what status dimension the aggregation is keyed on.
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 resource name with boilerplate ('API endpoint that allows risk scenarios to be viewed or edited') and never explains the 'per_status' qualifier that distinguishes this tool from siblings like risk_scenarios_retrieve, risk_scenarios_list, or risk_scenarios_count_per_level. An agent cannot tell what this specific endpoint returns versus the many other risk_scenario retrieve tools.
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?
There is no guidance on when to call this instead of the numerous sibling risk_scenario endpoints. No mention of required status grouping context, no exclusions, no alternatives — the agent is left to guess entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.