ciso_assistant_api_presets_listRetrieve and filter CISO Assistant presets with pagination, search, ordering, folder, provider, and page-limit options to support compliance and risk management setup.
Override the list method to inject optimized data into the serializer context.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| folder | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| search | No | ||
| ordering | 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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. As a method override, the description has real behavioral implications (extra data injected into the serializer context) but never explains what that means for a caller — no mention of response shape, whether results are filtered, or pagination 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 a single short sentence, so there is no bloat, but the content is misfocused: it spends its only sentence on an internal implementation detail instead of the front-loaded purpose an agent needs.
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?
Eight optional parameters with zero schema documentation, no output schema, and a description that explains none of them. An agent has no basis to construct a correct call or predict results.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0% and all eight parameters (id, limit, folder, offset, search, ordering, provider, max_pages) have empty anyOf schemas with null defaults. The description compensates for none of this — it mentions no parameter at all, leaving limit/offset/search/ordering semantics entirely undocumented.
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 an internal implementation note ('Override the list method to inject optimized data into the serializer context') rather than a statement of user-facing purpose. It never says the tool lists API presets or what a preset is; an agent must infer from the tool name alone.
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 use this versus siblings like ciso_assistant_api_presets_retrieve, presets_apply_create, or presets_object_retrieve. The text addresses a Django developer extending the view, not an agent choosing a tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.