ciso_assistant_api_chat_sessions_listList chat sessions with pagination, search, and ordering while injecting optimized data into the serializer context for efficient retrieval.
Override the list method to inject optimized data into the serializer context.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | 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, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing an agent can act on — 'inject optimized data into serializer context' is an internal backend concern and does not disclose return shape, pagination behavior, or result ordering.
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 verbose, but it is under-specification rather than conciseness — the one sentence carries no information useful for invocation. Front-loading is moot when the content is a backend implementation note.
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?
A five-parameter list endpoint with no annotations gap to hide behind, zero schema coverage, and no output schema requires the description to explain pagination, search syntax, and ordering fields. It explains none of this, leaving the agent unable to call the tool correctly.
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 five parameters (limit, offset, search, ordering, max_pages) have 0% schema description coverage and untyped anyOf schemas, and the description says nothing about them. The burden was entirely on the description here and it provides no meaning for any parameter.
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 the user-facing operation. It never says it lists chat sessions, so the resource must be inferred from the tool name alone. This is closer to a code comment than a tool purpose.
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 the many sibling list/retrieve tools (e.g. chat_sessions_retrieve, chat_sessions_object_retrieve, chat_agent_runs_list). No prerequisites, no filtering context, no exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.