ciso_assistant_api_chat_agent_runs_listLists chat agent runs with filtering, search, ordering, and pagination to review or audit agent activity in CISO Assistant.
Override the list method to inject optimized data into the serializer context.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | ||
| kind | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| folder | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| search | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| ordering | No | ||
| max_pages | No | ||
| target_object_id | 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, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing a caller can act on — 'inject optimized data into the serializer context' hints at performance tuning but not at pagination, response shape, or filtering behavior, which matter for a 10-parameter list endpoint.
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, so it is not bloated, but the one sentence present is an internal code comment that carries no information for an agent. Brevity without content is under-specification rather than conciseness.
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?
Ten optional parameters with zero documentation, no output schema, and several closely related sibling endpoints demand far more than a note about serializer context. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this 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?
Schema description coverage is 0% across 10 parameters (id, kind, limit, folder, offset, search, status, ordering, max_pages, target_object_id), and the description supplies no meaning for any of them. Notably max_pages, which implies automatic pagination across pages, is entirely unexplained.
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 is an implementation note about overriding a serializer method, not a statement of what the tool does for a caller. An agent can infer from the name that this lists chat agent runs, but the text itself never says so and distinguishes nothing from siblings like agent_runs_retrieve or agent_runs_object_retrieve.
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 on when to use this versus agent_runs_retrieve, agent_runs_object_retrieve, cascade_info, or the questionnaire_runs list. The sentence addresses internal serialization, giving the agent no selection criteria at all.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.