Trace an ITGC control end to end by ID: retrieve its risk matrix row, test procedure and result, and findings that cite it. Accepts A1 or T-A1 style IDs.
Trace one control end to end: its risk and control row from the matrix, its test procedure and result, and findings that cite it. Accepts A1 or T-A1 style IDs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| control_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scope by saying it traces the control 'end to end' through risk/control row, test procedure/result, and citing findings, though it does not detail permissions or error 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?
Two tight sentences: the first states the action and return scope, the second supplies the ID format. No padding, and the core action is front-loaded.
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-parameter lookup with rich annotations and an output schema, the description is complete enough: it explains the control-centric trace and ID formats. Return-value details are already covered by the output schema, so no further elaboration is required.
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 single control_id parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry the meaning. It specifies that IDs can be 'A1 or T-A1 style,' which is valuable semantic information beyond the schema's bare string type.
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 states a specific verb and resource—trace one control—and enumerates the exact related data it returns: risk/control row, test procedure and result, and findings that cite it. It implicitly distinguishes this control-centric trace from siblings like list_findings by scoping everything to a single control.
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 explicit when-to-use guidance or alternative tools are named. The only usage-related hint is the accepted ID format; an agent must infer the tool's place among get_workpaper, list_findings, and open_items.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.