ciso_assistant_api_privacy_personal_data_listRetrieves privacy personal data records from CISO Assistant with filters for search, category, assets, and processing plus pagination.
Override the list method to inject optimized data into the serializer context.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| assets | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| search | No | ||
| category | 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 and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond that – no mention of pagination, default page size, filtering semantics, or what 'optimized data' means for results. The 'serializer context' phrasing is internal jargon that yields no agent-usable information.
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 brevity here comes from under-specification rather than efficiency. The single sentence is also not front-loaded with anything an agent needs, leading with framework internals instead of the operation.
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 9-parameter list tool with no output schema, no documented parameters, and an implementation-note description is wholly inadequate. The agent cannot form a correct call (e.g. whether 'search' or 'category' are valid filters, how max_pages interacts with limit/offset) from the available material.
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?
Nine optional parameters (id, limit, offset, search, category, ordering, assets, processing, max_pages) with 0% schema description coverage and zero enums, and the description explains none of them. The agent gets no meaning for any filter, pagination, or ordering parameter.
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 describes an internal implementation detail ('override the list method to inject optimized data into the serializer context') rather than stating the user-facing purpose, which is listing privacy personal data records. An agent can only infer the resource from the tool name, not from the description text.
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 whatsoever about when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling (e.g. ciso_assistant_api_privacy_personal_data_retrieve, _object_retrieve, _batch_action_create) is the appropriate alternative. Nothing tells the agent that this is the collection-level read endpoint.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.