ciso_assistant_api_evidence_revisions_listRetrieve paginated evidence revisions with search, ordering, and evidence filters for audit and compliance reviews.
Override the list method to inject optimized data into the serializer context.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| search | No | ||
| evidence | 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 and the description does not contradict it. What remains is a vague claim about "optimized data" in a serializer context, with no disclosure of result shape, ordering defaults, or whether the injected optimization changes what data is returned.
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 bloated, but the one sentence it spends is on an internal implementation detail rather than the caller-facing contract. Brevity is achieved at the cost of usefulness.
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 7 undocumented parameters, no output schema, no annotations beyond the safety hints, and a vast sibling surface, the description leaves the agent unable to construct a correct call. Nothing about pagination, filtering by evidence, or ordering is covered anywhere.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0% and there are 7 parameters (id, limit, offset, search, evidence, ordering, max_pages), none documented in the schema and none mentioned in the description. For a list endpoint, the meanings of limit/offset/max_pages and the evidence filter are exactly what an agent needs and gets nowhere.
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?
"Override the list method" hints that this returns a collection of evidence revisions, but the rest ("inject optimized data into the serializer context") is framework implementation jargon, not a statement of what the tool does for a caller. It never names the resource explicitly and gives nothing to distinguish it from siblings like evidence_revisions_retrieve or evidence_revisions_object_retrieve.
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?
The word "list" implies a collection fetch, but there is no statement of when to use this versus the retrieve/object_retrieve/cascade_info siblings, no prerequisites, and no note on pagination or filtering expectations. The agent must infer everything from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.