ciso_assistant_api_chat_questionnaire_runs_listList questionnaire runs with pagination, search, status, folder, and ordering filters to review assessment progress.
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 |
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, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing behavioral — no pagination, filtering, or result-shape context — only an internal serializer note that is irrelevant to invocation. It does not contradict the annotations.
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 there is no padding, but it is under-specified rather than concise: the one sentence spent is devoted to an implementation detail and nothing is front-loaded about the tool's actual function.
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 8 undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no description of what a questionnaire run is or what listing returns, the definition is far too thin for the complexity of the tool. It leaves the agent unable to call it correctly or safely.
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, limit, offset, folder, search, status, ordering, max_pages) have zero schema description coverage and mostly untyped anyOf wrappers. The description supplies no meaning for any of them, leaving the agent unable to infer filtering, pagination, or ordering semantics.
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 Django implementation act ("override the list method to inject optimized data into the serializer context") rather than the caller-facing purpose of listing chat questionnaire runs. Only the tool name and title convey the verb and resource, so the description itself is essentially a restatement of internals.
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 whatsoever on when to use this tool, when not to, or how it relates to the sibling tools (e.g. chat_questionnaire_runs_retrieve, _object_retrieve, _cascade_info_retrieve, _export_retrieve). An agent has no basis for choosing this over its many siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.