ciso_assistant_api_integrations_configs_listList integration configurations with pagination, search, ordering, and provider filters to retrieve and manage connected provider settings.
Override the list method to inject optimized data into the serializer context.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| search | No | ||
| ordering | No | ||
| provider | No | ||
| max_pages | No | ||
| provider__name | No | ||
| provider__provider_type | 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, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing behavioral — no word on pagination, filtering behavior, or what 'optimized data' means for the caller. It is not contradictory, merely empty.
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 short, but that brevity comes from saying nothing useful: the one sentence is an engineering rationale rather than front-loaded user-facing information.
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 nine-parameter, zero-coverage, no-output-schema list tool, the description supplies no resource identity, no filtering guidance, and no return-shape hint. It is entirely inadequate for correct invocation.
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?
Nine parameters exist at 0% schema description coverage (id, limit, offset, search, ordering, provider, max_pages, provider__name, provider__provider_type), and the description explains none of them. The bare 'limit/offset/search/provider__x' names are the only hints, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 text is an internal implementation note ('Override the list method to inject optimized data into the serializer context') rather than a description of what the tool returns. It never names the resource (API integration configurations) or distinguishes this list endpoint from siblings like ciso_assistant_api_integrations_configs_retrieve or _object_retrieve. An agent must infer purpose entirely from the tool name.
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, no mention of alternatives, and no prerequisites or exclusions. Nothing tells the agent when to pick this list endpoint over the retrieve/object_retrieve siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.