ciso_assistant_api_threats_provider_retrieveRetrieves threat records from CISO Assistant to support viewing and managing threat information for risk and compliance workflows.
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 phrase "viewed or edited" implies a mutable endpoint, which conflicts with the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false). Beyond that boilerplate, the description adds nothing about authentication, response shape, or that the payload is a provider/choice listing rather than threat records.
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 and front-loaded, but the single sentence is autogenerated filler rather than meaningful content, so its brevity comes from under-specification rather than discipline.
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, the description should at least say what comes back (e.g., a list of threat providers/choices). It does not, leaving the agent unable to predict the response or confirm the endpoint is read-only.
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, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the empty schema is self-explanatory and the baseline of 4 applies.
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?
"API endpoint that allows threats to be viewed or edited" is generic boilerplate that restates the endpoint concept without saying what the resource actually is. The name says "threats_provider" (a metadata/provider lookup), but the description speaks about "threats" generally, so it neither identifies the resource precisely nor distinguishes it from siblings like ciso_assistant_api_threats_retrieve, threats_list, 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?
No indication of when to call this instead of the many sibling threats endpoints. An agent has no way to know this is the provider/metadata lookup rather than a record fetch, so selection is guesswork.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.