ciso_assistant_api_journey_steps_listList journey steps with filtering, search, status, journey, and ordering options, plus pagination controls to retrieve exactly the compliance workflow data you need.
Override the list method to inject optimized data into the serializer context.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| search | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| journey | 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The only behavioral hint here — that returned data is "optimized"/enriched for the serializer — is vague and never explains pagination, default page size, or what the enrichment means for the caller.
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 with no filler, but that brevity comes from under-specification rather than tight writing: the one sentence describes an implementation detail instead of front-loading the caller-relevant facts.
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?
With 8 undocumented optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations explaining return shape, the description should carry the explanatory load — instead it offers nothing an agent could use to construct a correct call.
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?
Eight parameters (id, limit, offset, search, status, journey, ordering, max_pages) with 0% schema description coverage are entirely undocumented in both schema and description. The description adds no syntax, semantics, allowed values, or default meaning for any of them.
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 speaks in framework-internal terms ("Override the list method to inject optimized data into the serializer context") rather than stating what the tool does for a caller — namely, list journey steps. An agent can only infer a list operation from the tool name, not the description.
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 instead of the many sibling list/retrieve tools (journey_steps_retrieve, journey_steps_object_retrieve, journeys_list, etc.), no prerequisites, and no filtering scenario guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.