ciso_assistant_api_folders_users_listRetrieve a list of users assigned to a specific folder in CISO Assistant, with pagination and search filters. Use it to audit folder access or manage user assignments.
api_folders_users_list
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| 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?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is clear and the description does not contradict it. However, the description contributes nothing beyond the annotations: it does not explain the folder-scoping behavior, pagination semantics, or what a listing response contains.
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?
The text is a single bare token, so it is trivially short but under-specified rather than concise. There is no front-loaded statement of purpose, so there is nothing for the extra brevity to buy.
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 six-parameter paginated list endpoint with no output schema and zero schema description coverage, the description should carry substantial weight and instead carries none. An agent has no basis to choose between this and the many other folder/user list 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?
Schema description coverage is 0% for six parameters, and the description supplies no meaning for any of them. The required 'id' (presumably folder id), plus limit/offset/search/ordering/max_pages, are entirely undocumented in both places, so the agent cannot know how pagination or search behave.
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 the operation identifier 'api_folders_users_list' restated with no added phrasing; it is pure tautology of the name and title. At best it implies listing users scoped to a folder, but no verb or resource is articulated beyond the slug, and it does not distinguish this from siblings like ciso_assistant_api_users_list or ciso_assistant_api_folders_list.
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, or which sibling it replaces. An agent must infer from the name alone whether this returns folder-scoped users versus all users, and no prerequisites or context are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.