ciso_assistant_api_stored_libraries_tree_retrieveRetrieve the hierarchical tree structure of a stored compliance library by ID to inspect its sections and controls.
api_stored_libraries_tree_retrieve
| 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 readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond them: no statement about what the tree contains, depth, or whether it is scoped to one library.
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 short, but only because it is under-specified rather than efficient. The single token is not front-loaded information; it carries no content an agent could act on.
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 an undocumented `id`, the description should explain what the returned tree represents and what identifier is expected. It supplies neither, leaving an agent unable to invoke this correctly with confidence.
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 is one required parameter `id` with 0% schema description coverage, and the description says nothing about it. An agent cannot tell whether `id` refers to a stored library, a node, or an object type, which is a critical ambiguity for a single-parameter lookup.
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 a verbatim restatement of the tool name/endpoint path, not an explanation. An agent can infer only from the name that it retrieves some kind of tree for stored libraries, and there is no differentiation from siblings like stored_libraries_content_retrieve, stored_libraries_retrieve, or stored_libraries_cascade_info_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 use this versus the many closely named siblings (content_retrieve, object_retrieve, cascade_info_retrieve, list). Nothing states preconditions or the intended scenario for a tree view.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.