ciso_assistant_api_privacy_data_transfers_listLists privacy data transfers with search, ordering, and pagination filters so you can review cross-border transfer records for compliance.
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 | ||
| transfer_mechanism | 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, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond that – no mention of pagination behavior, filtering scope, or what 'optimized data' means in the returned payload.
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 its content is internal jargon that does not front-load any information a caller needs. Brevity here comes from omission rather than efficiency.
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?
With 8 undocumented parameters, no output schema, and only generic annotations, the description should carry substantial weight. Instead it leaves the caller with no idea of the resource, the filtering options, or the response shape.
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 8 parameters with 0% schema description coverage and no descriptions in the schema at all. The description mentions none of them – not limit/offset pagination, search, ordering, max_pages, nor the filters processing/transfer_mechanism – so an agent must guess every argument's 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 is a developer implementation note ('Override the list method to inject optimized data into the serializer context') rather than a statement of what the tool does for a caller. It never says it lists privacy data transfer records, nor distinguishes it from siblings like ciso_assistant_api_privacy_data_transfers_retrieve or _object_retrieve; only the tool name conveys the resource.
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 retrieve, object_retrieve, cascade_info, or batch_action siblings. The only implied context is 'list', which the name already gives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.