Retrieve a specific security risk assessment by its unique ID to access detailed scan findings and vulnerability data for MSP-managed environments.
Get a single risk assessment by ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Assessment UUID. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies a read operation, but nothing is said about not-found behavior, response contents, authorization needs, or whether the returned assessment is a full object or a summary.
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?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource and communicates the one essential constraint (by ID) efficiently.
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?
The tool is simple: one required parameter and no nested objects. Still, with no output schema and no annotations, the agent is left to infer what 'a risk assessment' means in the response and what to expect on failure. It is minimally viable but has clear gaps.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% and the id parameter is already described as 'Assessment UUID.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 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?
The description clearly states a specific action ('Get'), a resource ('risk assessment'), and scope ('single ... by ID'). It is distinguishable from list_risk_assessments and the more specific device/scan-status getters, though it does not explicitly name those siblings.
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?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus telivy_list_risk_assessments or the other risk-assessment getters. 'By ID' implies the agent should already have an assessment UUID, but the description does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.