ciso_assistant_api_security_exceptions_status_retrieveRetrieve security exception status from CISO Assistant to check whether exceptions are active, expired, or pending for compliance 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?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, yet the description says records can be "edited", implying a write capability the endpoint does not have. Even setting the contradiction aside, no behavioral context (what the status values represent, whether the list is static, permissions) is added.
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 padding, but it is boilerplate that conveys almost no operational information; brevity here comes from under-specification rather than from tight editing.
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 output schema and no parameters, the description is the only place to explain that this returns the allowable status values for security exceptions. It does not, so an agent cannot tell what it will receive or why it matters.
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 schema carries no semantics for the description to supplement. Baseline 4 applies.
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." It names the resource but the operation is vague, and it does not distinguish this status-lookup endpoint from siblings such as security_exceptions_retrieve, security_exceptions_list, or security_exceptions_severity_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 guidance on when to call this versus the many sibling security-exception endpoints. The description states no preconditions, no caller context, and no exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.