ciso_assistant_api_threats_ids_retrieveRetrieve specific threat data by ID for viewing or editing, enabling focused threat management in CISO Assistant.
API endpoint that allows threats to be viewed or edited.
| 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?
The description claims threats can be "viewed or edited," but annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the schema accepts zero parameters, so no edit is possible. This directly contradicts the structured safety profile an agent relies on.
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 redundancy or buried detail. It is efficient, but its brevity comes from boilerplate rather than from deliberate compression of useful information.
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 parameterless retrieve endpoint with no output schema, the description should at minimum say what comes back (e.g., a list of threat IDs given the "ids" in the name). Instead it repeats generic ViewSet boilerplate that says nothing about the response shape.
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 tool takes no parameters and the schema is an empty object, so there is nothing for the description to document. Baseline 4 applies, though a note that the endpoint returns a list of IDs would have been welcome.
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 restates the title in generic terms: "API endpoint that allows threats to be viewed or edited." It names the resource (threats) but gives no specific verb or scope, and it is indistinguishable from siblings such as threats_retrieve, threats_list, threats_object_retrieve, or threats_ids_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 guidance on when to use this versus the many other threats read endpoints in the sibling list. The only usage cue, "or edited," is misleading since this operation takes no parameters.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.