ciso_assistant_api_asset_class_listRetrieve and filter asset classes from CISO Assistant to support risk and compliance workflows, with pagination, search, parent filters, and ordering.
Override the list method to inject optimized data into the serializer context.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | ||
| name | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| parent | No | ||
| search | No | ||
| ordering | No | ||
| max_pages | No |
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=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no useful behavioral context such as pagination behavior, filtering semantics, or what 'optimized data' means for the response; it only exposes an irrelevant serialization implementation detail.
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?
It is a single sentence, so it is short, but that sentence is spent on an internal implementation note instead of the one thing a caller needs: that this lists asset classes and how to filter/page them.
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?
An 8-parameter list endpoint with no output schema and no parameter documentation needs the description to explain filtering and pagination; instead it explains serializer context injection. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is present.
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?
All 8 parameters (id, name, limit, offset, parent, search, ordering, max_pages) have 0% schema description coverage, and the description says nothing about them. The burden falls entirely on the description here, and it does not compensate at all.
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 reads as an internal developer note ('Override the list method to inject optimized data into the serializer context') rather than a statement of what the tool does for a caller. Only the name/title ('asset_class_list') tells an agent that this lists asset classes, so the description adds no distinguishing purpose versus siblings like asset_class_retrieve or asset_class_create.
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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives (e.g. asset_class_retrieve, asset_class_object_retrieve, asset_class_tree_retrieve), and no prerequisites or scoping rules. A caller must guess that this is the enumeration endpoint from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.