ciso_assistant_api_perimeters_listList and filter CISO Assistant perimeters with pagination to retrieve compliance scope data for audits and reporting.
Override the list method to inject optimized data into the serializer context.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | ||
| name | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| folder | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| search | No | ||
| ordering | No | ||
| campaigns | No | ||
| lc_status | 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 and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds no behavioral context at all — no pagination behavior despite limit/offset/max_pages parameters, no filtering semantics, no return shape — and instead spends its only sentence on serializer internals.
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 it is not bloated, but the single sentence is spent on an irrelevant implementation note rather than on what the tool returns or how to filter. Brevity here costs clarity rather than buying it.
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 10-parameter listing tool with no output schema and no parameter documentation leaves an agent unable to construct a correct call — it cannot know how to filter, sort, or paginate. The description supplies none of that missing information.
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 with 0% schema description coverage, and the description explains none of them. Filters like name, folder, campaigns, lc_status, search, ordering, limit/offset and max_pages are entirely undocumented in both schema and description.
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 'Override the list method to inject optimized data into the serializer context' describes an internal Django implementation detail, not a user-facing capability. It never says the tool lists perimeters, nor what a perimeter is, so an agent must infer the resource purely from the tool name.
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 call this versus the many siblings (perimeters_retrieve, perimeters_object_retrieve, perimeters_names_retrieve, perimeters_ids_retrieve, perimeters_cascade_info_retrieve). Nothing states it is the collection-listing entry point for perimeters.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.