ciso_assistant_api_document_revisions_listLists document revisions with pagination, search, status, and document filters, enabling users to review revision history and manage document versions.
Override the list method to inject optimized data into the serializer context.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| search | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| document | 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, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond a vague hint that returned data is 'optimized'/enriched in the serializer context; it says nothing about pagination, filtering behavior, or result shape. Not contradictory, but nearly empty of added value.
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, but the brevity comes from under-specification rather than efficiency: the one sentence describes an internal serializer override and contributes nothing an agent can act on.
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 an 8-parameter list endpoint with no output schema, the definition is far too thin. The only mitigation is that annotations signal it is a safe read-only, idempotent, paginated-style list operation, which lets an agent guess at basic usage.
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?
Eight parameters (id, limit, offset, search, status, document, ordering, max_pages) have 0% schema description coverage and the description explains none of them. With zero structured documentation, the description carries the full burden here and provides nothing.
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 implementation note ('Override the list method to inject optimized data into the serializer context') rather than a statement of what the tool does. Only the tool name hints that this lists document revisions; the description itself never names the resource, the return shape, or how it differs from sibling revision tools.
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 when-to-use guidance and no reference to alternatives, despite many closely related siblings (document_revisions_retrieve, object_retrieve, cascade_info_retrieve, diff_retrieve). An agent gets no help deciding between a list call and a single-object retrieve.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.