ciso_assistant_api_vulnerabilities_sankey_data_retrieveRetrieve vulnerability data structured for Sankey diagrams to visualize relationships and flows between vulnerabilities, assets, and risk categories.
Returns vulnerability data structured for Sankey diagram:
| 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description contributes only the vague output-shape hint 'structured for Sankey diagram' and then stops at a colon, disclosing nothing about the returned node/link structure, data scope, or any filtering behavior.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is good, but it terminates in a dangling colon that signals dropped content rather than deliberate brevity. The result reads as a truncated fragment rather than a complete statement.
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 and no parameters, the description is the only place an agent could learn what the Sankey payload looks like (nodes/links, labels, aggregation) and what scope it covers, and it provides none of that. For a zero-schema analytics endpoint, this leaves 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 no parameters (parameter count 0), so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter-related gaps exist.
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?
States a clear verb ('Returns') and a specific resource ('vulnerability data structured for Sankey diagram'), which distinguishes it from siblings like ciso_assistant_api_vulnerabilities_treemap_data_retrieve and ciso_assistant_api_vulnerabilities_list. However, the trailing colon suggests the sentence was truncated before any elaboration, and it never disambiguates from the analogous sankey tools for findings and security exceptions.
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 an agent should choose this over the treemap, list, severity, or status endpoints, nor any prerequisites, filters, or scope constraints. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.