ciso_assistant_api_security_exceptions_export_xlsx_retrieveExport security exceptions as an XLSX spreadsheet to support reporting, auditing, and offline review.
API endpoint that allows security exceptions 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 exceptions can be "viewed or edited", implying write capability, while annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false - an inconsistency. It also gives no useful behavioral context the annotations don't already supply: export format, scope of data included, and whether filters are applied are all unstated.
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 is front-loaded and free of padding, but it is boilerplate rather than purposeful brevity. It omits the one fact worth stating (that the output is an XLSX file).
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 and no parameters, so the description must explain what a caller receives; instead it omits the file format, whether the export is filtered, and the response shape. The annotations cover only the safety profile, leaving the core contract undocumented.
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 are zero parameters, so the schema baseline of 4 applies; the description neither helps nor hurts. It does not, however, clarify that calling with no parameters exports the entire exception set.
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 ("API endpoint that allows security exceptions to be viewed or edited") and never says the endpoint exports an XLSX file, which is the only distinguishing signal and it comes from the name alone. It also fails to separate this tool from siblings like security_exceptions_export_csv_retrieve, security_exceptions_list, or security_exceptions_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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of the CSV alternative (security_exceptions_export_csv_retrieve) or the list/retrieve siblings. An agent must infer from the tool name that this produces a spreadsheet export rather than a normal read.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.