ciso_assistant_api_security_advisories_source_retrieveRetrieves security advisory source records from CISO Assistant so you can review and edit advisory information through the API.
API endpoint that allows security advisories 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 advisories to be 'viewed or edited', while annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. Claiming an edit capability on a read-only endpoint is a direct contradiction, and nothing is said about what the 'source' variant returns. Annotation Contradiction flagged.
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 wasted clauses, but its brevity comes from boilerplate rather than from front-loading the information the agent needs (what 'source' means, read-only nature).
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 parameters, no output schema, and annotations that already cover safety, the description could have closed the remaining gap by saying what the source endpoint returns and that it is read-only. Instead it repeats generic boilerplate and contradicts the annotations.
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 parameter semantics carry no burden and the baseline of 4-5 applies. There is nothing an agent could mis-supply.
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 is generic DRF boilerplate that restates the tool name ('security advisories ... viewed or edited') without explaining what the 'source' retrieval actually returns or how it differs from the many near-identical siblings such as ciso_assistant_api_security_advisories_retrieve, _list, _object_retrieve and _update.
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 guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of when an agent should pick this over the sibling retrieve/list/update tools for the same resource. The phrase 'viewed or edited' implies either read or write without telling the agent which applies.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.