ciso_assistant_api_integrations_providers_listList all available and active integration providers with optional filters for name, provider type, search, ordering, and pagination.
An API endpoint to list all available (and active) Integration Providers.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| search | No | ||
| ordering | No | ||
| max_pages | No | ||
| 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, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral detail – that only available/active providers are returned – but says nothing about pagination, result size, or whether inactive providers can be surfaced via parameters.
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?
A single sentence with no padding beyond the boilerplate 'An API endpoint to' opener. It is front-loaded but under-specified rather than efficient, so it earns a middling score.
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 seven undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description does not explain pagination behavior, the shape of returned provider objects, or how provider_type/search interact with the 'active' claim. Annotations cover safety but not the call contract, leaving the agent under-equipped.
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?
Seven parameters (name, limit, offset, search, ordering, max_pages, provider_type) have 0% schema description coverage, and the description mentions none of them. The 0-coverage baseline requires the description to compensate, and it does not; the agent must guess at pagination and filter semantics.
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 states a specific verb (list) and resource (Integration Providers), and the parenthetical '(and active)' signals a filtered scope. It is distinguishable from the sibling integrations_configs_list (which returns configured instances rather than the provider catalog), though it never names that alternative explicitly.
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 statement of when to call this versus integrations_configs_list or integrations_test_connection_create, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The only hint is the word 'active' in the parenthetical, which implies a filter but does not instruct the agent when that filter matters.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.