May I respectfully suggest that individual agencies potentially involved in the panoply of those required to successfully prosecute a required specific action, should remain the realm of tv without straying into specifics. Sanitised public releases of successful outcomes are released occasionally, however they do not delve into specifics or individual agencies except if those releasing them want an individual agency to take the credit. Lets just leave it as a team effort.
My mentioning of Spooks was just that it was coincidental to the conversation. I'm sure we can all differentiate between a TV drama and a real-life, fly-on-the-wall documentary.
It is important that the overall objective is to detect organised crime and bring offenders to justice and not willy-wave about who played the most important part in doing that. It is a shared endeavour and relies upon the necessary cooperation between different agencies and departments, nationally and internationally, each of whom have their own specialisms. After all, crims aren't siloed or geographically restricted when it comes to committing crime so their activities will cross between the different law enforcement and intelligence agencies, home and abroad.
I think it would also be fair to say that there will be many instances where operations have been successful but there is very limited publicly released information due to on-going and/or parallel investigations that might risk exposing UC officers or CIs or particular methods of intelligence or evidence gathering techniques that might otherwise jeopardise current or future investigations.