ciso_assistant_api_terminologies_retrieveRetrieve a terminology object by its ID, with unauthorized related fields automatically masked to prevent exposure of sensitive 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 the safety profile is covered. The description does add genuine behavioral context beyond that: returned related fields are masked for unauthorized users, meaning the response content depends on the caller's permissions. However, it never clarifies which fields count as 'related' or what 'unauthorized' means in practice, leaving the disclosure cryptic.
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?
One short sentence with no filler, so there is nothing to trim. But the brevity comes at the cost of substance — it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description carried the burden of explaining the returned object, and it does not. It omits the resource domain, the shape of the response, and the specifics of the masking behavior, leaving an agent unable to judge whether this tool returns the data it needs.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the single required parameter 'id' is completely undocumented in both the schema and the description. The phrase 'a single object' hints at lookup-by-identifier but does not specify the id format (UUID, slug, integer-as-string) or behavior on unknown ids, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 (terminologies) or the identifier used to select it. It essentially restates the 'retrieve' verb from the tool name in generic terms, and gives no way to distinguish it from the sibling ciso_assistant_api_terminologies_object_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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or how it relates to alternatives such as terminologies_list, terminologies_object_retrieve, or terminologies_field_path_retrieve. The agent must infer the use case entirely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.