ciso_assistant_api_vulnerabilities_object_retrieveRetrieves a specific vulnerability by ID from the CISO Assistant API, enabling you to view its details for risk and compliance management.
API endpoint that allows vulnerabilities to be viewed or edited.
| 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?
The annotations explicitly declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, yet the description claims vulnerabilities can be 'edited'. That directly contradicts the read-only annotation and could lead an agent to attempt a mutation through a GET-style tool. No other behavioral context (permissions, response shape, error behavior) 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?
It is a single short sentence with no padding, so it is concise mechanically. However, brevity here reflects boilerplate under-specification rather than distilled 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 single-object retrieval tool with an undocumented required id and no output schema, the description says nothing about what is returned or how to identify the object. Annotations cover the safety profile, but the description leaves the calling convention entirely to inference.
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, so the description carries the full burden. It says nothing about the id (format, UUID vs integer, source). The only hint of a parameter is absent entirely.
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 names the resource (vulnerabilities) but the verb is a generic boilerplate phrase, 'viewed or edited', that doesn't identify this as a single-object-by-ID retrieval. With siblings like ciso_assistant_api_vulnerabilities_list, _retrieve, and _update using the same boilerplate, there is nothing here to tell them apart.
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 on when to use this versus the list endpoint, the plain retrieve endpoint, or the update endpoint. The agent must infer from the tool name that this fetches one vulnerability by ID.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.