ciso_assistant_api_privacy_data_subjects_listList privacy data subjects from CISO Assistant with paging, search, and ordering to review or manage personal data 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, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the description carries little burden; nevertheless it discloses nothing an agent needs — no result shape, pagination, or filtering behavior. 'Inject optimized data into the serializer context' is developer-facing and conveys no observable 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 it is a single jargon-heavy sentence that leads with an internal method-override note instead of the resource and operation. Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than 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 parameter documentation, and no usage context. The description provides none of the information needed to invoke it correctly, let alone interpret 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?
All 7 parameters (id, limit, offset, search, ordering, max_pages, processing) have 0% schema description coverage, and the description mentions none of them. It fails to compensate at all for the schema gap, leaving an agent to guess pagination and search semantics.
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 restates the title in framework jargon ('override the list method', 'serializer context') rather than telling an agent that this retrieves a list of privacy data subjects. An agent can only infer 'list' from the tool name suffix, not from the description itself.
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 use this versus siblings such as ciso_assistant_api_privacy_data_subjects_retrieve or _object_retrieve, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The sentence is about implementation internals, not usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.