ciso_assistant_api_organisation_objectives_listList organization objectives with filters for status, health, folder, and assigned user to support compliance tracking.
Override the list method to inject optimized data into the serializer context.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| folder | No | ||
| health | No | ||
| issues | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| search | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| ordering | No | ||
| is_active | No | ||
| max_pages | No | ||
| assigned_to | 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 and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing behavioral (no pagination, filtering, or scope notes) and instead frames the tool as a serializer-internal override, which tells the agent nothing about the response.
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?
One short sentence, so there is no bloat, but it is under-specified rather than concise: the single sentence is spent on an internal implementation note instead of on the resource and its filters.
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?
A 12-parameter, zero-coverage list endpoint with no output schema needs the description to explain filters, pagination and returned fields. The description covers none of that.
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?
Twelve parameters (id, limit, folder, health, issues, offset, search, status, ordering, is_active, max_pages, assigned_to) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description explains none of them. An agent has no way to know what these filters mean, especially health/issues enum-like fields.
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 restates that this is a list method but never names the resource: it never says it lists organisation objectives, and 'inject optimized data into the serializer context' is internal implementation detail an agent cannot act on. Only the tool name conveys the purpose.
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 the many sibling list endpoints (e.g. organisation_objectives_retrieve, object_retrieve, or other organisation_* lists). The description offers no usage context whatsoever.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.