ciso_assistant_api_task_nodes_retrieveRetrieve a task node by ID while masking unauthorized related fields, so you can inspect accessible task details without exposing 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 readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond that: unauthorized related fields come back masked. It does not say what masking looks like, whether it depends on role, or what occurs if the id is not found.
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, so nothing is wasted, but it is under-specified rather than concise. The one meaningful clause (field masking) is placed well, yet it cannot compensate for the missing resource name.
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?
For a read-by-id tool with no output schema and an undocumented parameter, the description leaves an agent unable to know what a task node is, what the id looks like, or what fields appear in the returned object. Annotations cover safety only, so the remaining gaps are real.
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 no explanation in the description. Since the schema carries no meaning, the description should have stated that id is the task node identifier and its format, but it says nothing about parameters.
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 it returns "a single object" but never names the resource; only the tool name reveals it is a task node. It is nearly a restatement of "retrieve" with no verb+resource specificity that would separate it 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 guidance on when to use this versus ciso_assistant_api_task_nodes_list, _object_retrieve, or _cascade_info_retrieve. No prerequisites, no exclusion conditions, nothing that tells an agent which of the near-identical task-node reads to pick.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.