ciso_assistant_api_validation_flows_default_ref_id_retrieveRetrieve a validation flow by its default reference ID to review its configuration and details.
API endpoint that allows validation flows 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 the endpoint allows flows to be 'viewed or edited,' while annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. That is a direct contradiction of the declared behavior, and no real behavioral context is added.
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 filler, but that brevity comes from boilerplate rather than precision. It is under-specified rather than efficiently scoped.
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 with no output schema, the description should at least explain what object is returned and how the 'default ref id' lookup resolves. Neither is addressed, leaving the agent unable to predict the response.
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 zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The only gap is that it never says whether the flow is identified implicitly by path context.
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 resource ('validation flows') with generic boilerplate 'viewed or edited' rather than a specific verb. The 'default ref id' aspect, which distinguishes this from ciso_assistant_api_validation_flows_retrieve and _object_retrieve, is never explained.
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 at all on when to use this versus the many sibling retrieval endpoints (retrieve, object_retrieve, list, cascade_info_retrieve). Nothing indicates what 'default ref id' means or when it is the right choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.