ciso_assistant_api_cwes_listLists Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE) records with filters, search, pagination, and ordering to support compliance and risk analysis in CISO Assistant.
Override the list method to inject optimized data into the serializer context.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | ||
| urn | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| folder | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| search | No | ||
| library | No | ||
| ordering | No | ||
| provider | No | ||
| max_pages | No | ||
| filtering_labels | 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, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only an internal note about serializer context injection, which tells the agent nothing actionable about the response, filtering, or pagination behavior of this 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 there is no bloat, but the sentence does not earn its place: it conveys only an implementation detail rather than the resource being listed or the filters supported.
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 11 undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no explanation of return shape or filtering, the description is entirely inadequate for a list endpoint of this complexity. It is effectively an internal code comment exposed as a tool description.
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?
Eleven parameters (id, urn, limit, offset, search, folder, library, ordering, provider, max_pages, filtering_labels) have zero schema description coverage and untyped anyOf bodies, and the description supplies no meaning for any of them. The agent must guess at the semantics of pagination, ordering, and the library/folder/provider filters.
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 references "the list method" but never states what is being listed; the resource (CWEs) is inferable only from the tool name. What remains is an implementation note about injecting optimized data into a serializer context, which describes internals rather than the tool's observable 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 tool, no prerequisites, and no mention of the obvious siblings such as ciso_assistant_api_cwes_retrieve, cwes_object_retrieve, or cwes_autocomplete_retrieve. An agent has no textual basis for choosing among them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.