ciso_assistant_api_organisation_issues_listList organization issues with filtering by status, category, and search, plus pagination, to support compliance and risk management workflows.
Override the list method to inject optimized data into the serializer context.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| folder | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| origin | No | ||
| search | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| category | 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 readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so safety is covered. However, the description's talk of 'injecting optimized data into the serializer context' is implementation jargon that conveys nothing usable to an agent about response shape, pagination, or filtering 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 short, but the single sentence is wasted on internal implementation detail rather than front-loading the operation's purpose or its parameters, so brevity earns nothing here.
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 10-parameter list tool with no output schema and no annotation-adjacent behavioral detail, the description supplies none of the filtering, pagination, or return-value context an agent needs to call it correctly.
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?
Ten parameters exist with 0% schema description coverage, and the description provides zero information about any of them (search, status, category, ordering, limit, offset, folder, origin, id, max_pages). With the burden fully on the description and it offering nothing, this is a severe 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 description is a developer docstring about overriding the list method and injecting serializer context; it never states that it lists organisation issues or what data is returned. It effectively restates the tool name without adding resource-level meaning.
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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tooling is mentioned. An agent has no signal for choosing this over the many sibling list/retrieve endpoints such as organisation_issues_retrieve or object_retrieve.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.