ciso_assistant_api_privacy_right_requests_listRetrieve and filter privacy rights requests by status, type, owner, and folder to track and manage data subject requests.
Override the list method to inject optimized data into the serializer context.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | ||
| name | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| owner | No | ||
| folder | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| search | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| ordering | No | ||
| max_pages | No | ||
| processings | No | ||
| request_type | 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, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no mention of pagination, filtering behavior, auth requirements, or what 'optimized data' means for the caller — and its serializer-internals framing is developer jargon rather than agent-facing context.
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 conciseness only counts when the content earns its place. Here the one sentence is an implementation note that conveys no actionable information to an agent, so brevity does not compensate for being uninformative.
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 12-parameter list endpoint with zero parameter documentation and no output schema needs the description to carry the burden, and it does not. Nothing about filtering, pagination, or return shape is disclosed, making the definition inadequate for correct invocation.
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?
The schema has 12 parameters (id, name, limit, offset, search, status, ordering, max_pages, processings, request_type, owner, folder) at 0% description coverage, and the description explains none of them. It does not clarify that limit/offset control pagination, what max_pages does, or how the filter fields combine.
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 text 'Override the list method to inject optimized data into the serializer context' describes an internal Django implementation detail rather than the tool's purpose. It never states that this retrieves privacy right requests, so an agent cannot tell what resource is being listed or distinguish it from the many other *_list siblings.
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 tool, when to prefer ciso_assistant_api_privacy_right_requests_object_retrieve or the request_type/status/owner variants, or what prerequisites exist. The sentence gives only implementation rationale, leaving all selection decisions to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.