ciso_assistant_api_privacy_data_recipients_listList privacy data recipients through CISO Assistant API with search, ordering, and pagination to review and manage recipient records.
Override the list method to inject optimized data into the serializer context.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| search | No | ||
| ordering | No | ||
| max_pages | No | ||
| processing | 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, openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds nothing behavioral — 'inject optimized data into the serializer context' is an implementation detail with no observable consequence for the caller, and it does not mention pagination or result shape.
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, but it is front-loaded with an internal implementation claim rather than actionable information. Brevity here reflects under-specification, not economy.
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 7-parameter list endpoint with no output schema, no annotation-independent behavior detail, and no parameter docs. An agent cannot call this correctly: it does not know what the filters do, what pagination looks like, or what 'processing' accepts.
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?
There are 7 parameters with 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the full burden — and it explains none of them. limit, offset, search, ordering, max_pages, processing, and id are all left completely undefined in both schema and prose.
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 note about an overridden Django view method, not a statement of what the endpoint does. It never says this lists privacy data recipients, so an agent must infer purpose entirely from the tool name. Nothing distinguishes it from siblings like privacy_data_recipients_retrieve or _object_retrieve.
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 guidance, no alternatives named, no prerequisites. The closest relevant siblings (object_retrieve, cascade_info_retrieve, batch_action_create) are never referenced, so an agent has no basis for choosing this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.