ciso_assistant_api_chat_documents_listList and filter chat documents with pagination, search, folder, status, and ordering parameters to retrieve relevant records from CISO Assistant.
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 | ||
| source_type | 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, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the bar is lower, but the description adds nothing beyond them — no mention of what is returned, whether results are paginated, or what 'optimized data' means for the caller. The serializer-context detail is invisible to an API consumer.
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 short, but the brevity comes from saying nothing useful rather than being efficient — the one sentence is internal jargon that doesn't front-load the operation or its inputs.
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 9-parameter list endpoint with no output schema and no annotation-supplementing detail, the description leaves the agent unable to know what filters exist, what the response contains, or how paging works. Completely inadequate for the tool's complexity.
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?
Nine parameters (id, limit, folder, offset, search, status, ordering, max_pages, source_type) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description explains none of them. Filters like folder, status, and source_type are undocumented in both places.
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 internal Django implementation note ('override the list method to inject optimized data into the serializer context') rather than a statement of what the tool does. An agent must infer from the tool name that it lists chat documents; the description never says so.
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 on when to use this versus siblings like chat_documents_retrieve or chat_documents_object_retrieve, and no mention of filtering, pagination, or prerequisites. The single sentence is about internals, not caller-facing usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.