ciso_assistant_api_folders_listList folders with filtering, pagination, and search to manage compliance and risk data.
Override the list method to inject optimized data into the serializer context.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | ||
| name | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| owned | No | ||
| owner | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| search | No | ||
| ordering | No | ||
| max_pages | No | ||
| content_type | No | ||
| parent_folder | 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 state readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds no user-relevant behavioral context such as pagination, filtering behavior, or what the optimized serializer data means; it mainly describes an internal override.
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 not front-loaded with user-facing purpose. The sentence is essentially an internal implementation note rather than useful tool documentation.
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 a list endpoint with 12 optional parameters, no output schema, and many sibling folder tools, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain the returned resources, filtering, pagination, ordering, or how to distinguish this list from other folder-related tools.
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?
The schema has 12 parameters with 0% description coverage, including id, name, limit, owned, owner, offset, search, ordering, max_pages, content_type, parent_folder, and filtering_labels. The description says nothing about any of them, so an agent receives no semantic help for choosing or formatting parameter values.
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 implementation note about overriding the list method and injecting optimized serializer data, not a statement of what the tool does for an agent. From the name and title an agent may infer it lists folders, but the description itself does not clearly say that.
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, when not to use it, or how it relates to sibling folder tools such as folders_retrieve or folders_my_assignments_retrieve. The description provides only an internal code-level rationale.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.