ciso_assistant_api_campaigns_listList and filter CISO Assistant GRC campaigns by status, framework, perimeter, folder, or search term, with pagination and ordering controls to retrieve campaign records.
Override the list method to inject optimized data into the serializer context.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| folder | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| search | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| ordering | No | ||
| max_pages | No | ||
| frameworks | No | ||
| perimeters | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.3.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true). The description adds only that serializer context is enriched, which is server-internal trivia and does not tell the agent what the response contains, whether results are paginated, or what 'optimized data' means for the caller.
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 short sentence, but the sentence is spent on an internal implementation note rather than user-facing behavior, so it fails the 'every sentence earns its place' test. Not verbose, just wasted.
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?
With 10 undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no explanation of the campaign resource or its filtering semantics, the definition gives an agent almost nothing it needs to construct a correct call. The heavy annotation set covers safety only, not invocation.
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?
Ten parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description mentions none of them. Filters like status, folder, frameworks, perimeters, search, ordering, limit/offset and max_pages are entirely undocumented in both schema and description, leaving the agent to guess at types, formats, and behavior.
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 describes an internal implementation detail ('Override the list method to inject optimized data into the serializer context') rather than stating that the tool lists campaigns. The resource (campaigns) is only inferable from the tool name, and nothing tells an agent what data it returns or what filters it supports.
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 guidance whatsoever on when to use this versus its many siblings (campaigns_retrieve, campaigns_object_retrieve, campaigns_metrics_retrieve, campaigns_status_retrieve). The 'list method' phrasing implies a collection read but gives no selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.