ciso_assistant_api_vulnerabilities_status_retrieveRetrieves vulnerability status data from CISO Assistant, enabling you to view remediation states and track security findings.
API endpoint that allows vulnerabilities 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 vulnerabilities can be "edited" here, while annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. That directly contradicts the structured safety profile and could lead an agent to attempt a write against a read-only endpoint.
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 sentence, no padding, so nothing is wasted — but it is the wrong sentence: it carries no distinguishing information and is front-loaded with generic framework boilerplate rather than the endpoint's actual scope.
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?
Annotations carry the safety profile and there is no output schema, so the remaining burden on the description is small — but it should at minimum say that this returns the set of vulnerability status values rather than vulnerability records. That essential disambiguation is absent, and the "edited" claim actively misleads.
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 explain; baseline 4 applies. The empty schema with additionalProperties=false is unambiguous on its own.
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 is Django-REST-Framework boilerplate ("API endpoint that allows vulnerabilities to be viewed or edited") that restates the resource without stating the actual operation. It gives no hint that this endpoint returns status metadata (as sibling endpoints like vulnerabilities_severity_retrieve and vulnerabilities_status_retrieve imply), so an agent cannot distinguish it from vulnerabilities_retrieve or vulnerabilities_list.
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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, no mention of alternatives. The phrase "viewed or edited" is the only usage signal and it is misleading for a retrieve endpoint.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.