ciso_assistant_api_mapping_libraries_listList API mapping libraries with pagination, search, locale, provider, and packager filters to inspect available compliance mappings.
api_mapping_libraries_list
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| locale | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| search | No | ||
| ordering | No | ||
| packager | 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, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds nothing about pagination behavior, whether the listing spans the whole catalog or is filtered by provider/packager, or what a result entry looks like.
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 extremely short, but the brevity is under-specification rather than economy — the single token carries no usable information and is not front-loaded with anything an agent can 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 eight undocumented optional parameters, no output schema, and no description, an agent cannot know what the tool returns, how pagination works, or how to filter. Nothing compensates for the schema coverage gap.
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 (limit, offset, locale, search, ordering, packager, provider, max_pages) have zero schema description coverage, and the description supplies no meaning for any of them. Fields like packager, provider, locale, and max_pages are non-obvious and remain entirely unexplained.
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 just the snake_case tool name repeated as prose, adding no verb, resource scope, or object detail beyond what the name and title already convey. It reads as a tautology rather than an explanation of what a 'mapping library' is or what listing one returns.
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?
No guidance on when to call this versus alternatives such as ciso_assistant_api_stored_libraries_list, ciso_assistant_api_requirement_mapping_sets_list, or ciso_assistant_api_frameworks_list, all of which are plausible siblings. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.