ciso_assistant_api_solutions_retrieveRetrieve a single solution by ID and return only authorized fields, masking restricted data.
Return a single object with unauthorized related fields masked.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.3.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description does add genuine behavioral context beyond them: fields related to unauthorized resources are masked in the response, which affects how the agent should interpret the payload. However, it does not say how masking is determined or whether it can vary per caller.
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 short sentence with no waste, but the brevity is under-specification rather than efficiency. Nothing is front-loaded about the resource being retrieved.
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 does not say what object is returned, its shape, or what happens on a missing/unauthorized id. For a by-id retrieve tool, the only substantive information is the masking note, which leaves the definition materially incomplete.
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 single required 'id' parameter has 0% schema description coverage and no type/format hint (string, likely UUID), and the description adds nothing about it. With only one parameter and no compensating detail, the definition leaves the identifier's expected form ambiguous.
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 says only that it returns 'a single object' and never names the resource. The object identity ('solutions') must be inferred from the tool name/title, so an agent cannot distinguish it by description from the many sibling *_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 statement of when to use this tool versus solutions_object_retrieve, solutions_list, or solutions_cascade_info_retrieve. The word 'single' hints at a by-id fetch, but no conditions or alternatives are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.