ciso_assistant_api_frameworks_listLists compliance frameworks from CISO Assistant via API with filtering, search, pagination, and ordering for framework inventory and selection.
Override the list method to inject optimized data into the serializer context.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| folder | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| search | No | ||
| baseline | No | ||
| ordering | No | ||
| provider | 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 and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds zero behavioral context such as pagination, filtering behavior, or what 'optimized data' means for the response. The phrase 'serializer context' describes server internals, not observable behavior.
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 sentence, but it is concise in the wrong way: it spends its only line on an internal override rationale instead of front-loading any information an agent could 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 a list endpoint with 9 filtering/pagination parameters and no output schema, the description supplies nothing about filters, defaults, or result shape. An agent cannot invoke this correctly from the definition alone.
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 tool has 9 parameters (id, limit, folder, offset, search, baseline, ordering, provider, max_pages) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description mentions none of them. With zero compensation for an entirely undocumented parameter set, this is a clear failure.
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 'Override the list method to inject optimized data into the serializer context' is an internal implementation note rather than a statement of what the tool does. It hints at listing but never names the resource (frameworks) or the user-facing action, leaving purpose effectively undocumented.
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 how it relates to siblings like ciso_assistant_api_frameworks_retrieve or ciso_assistant_api_frameworks_tree_retrieve. Nothing routes an agent to or away from this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.