ciso_assistant_api_settings_general_object_retrieveRetrieve general object settings from CISO Assistant GRC to inspect configuration data via the REST API.
api_settings_general_object_retrieve
| 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 already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that — no mention of what configuration data is returned, whether it is per-tenant, or any auth/sensitivity context.
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?
It is a single token with no filler, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness — there is no front-loaded statement of purpose, scope, or return content to justify the extreme brevity.
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 and the description supplies nothing about what settings object is returned or how it relates to the sibling settings endpoints (feature flags, SSO, general retrieve). For a zero-parameter, annotation-only tool, the description leaves the agent unable to call it with confidence about the result.
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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain; baseline 4 applies. No parameter meaning is missing or misrepresented.
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 the tool name verbatim ('api_settings_general_object_retrieve'), which merely restates the identifier without stating in prose what the tool returns or how it differs from the very similar sibling ciso_assistant_api_settings_general_retrieve. An agent gets the gist from the name alone, but nothing is clarified.
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 when-to-use guidance, no indication of what 'general settings' covers, and no routing advice relative to the near-identical sibling api_settings_general_retrieve. The agent must guess based on name morphology.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.