ciso_assistant_api_requirement_mapping_sets_listList requirement mapping sets with pagination, search, ordering, and provider filters to inspect compliance mappings.
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 | ||
| provider | No | ||
| max_pages | 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, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing actionable beyond that — it does not disclose pagination behavior for limit/offset/max_pages, result ordering, or what 'optimized data' means for callers.
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 with no padding, so it is concise. However, the brevity comes from omitting necessary content rather than from tight writing, and the sentence leads with an irrelevant implementation detail.
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 seven-parameter list endpoint with no output schema and no schema documentation requires the description to carry the full load. Instead it explains a serializer-context optimization, leaving resource identity, filtering, pagination, and return shape entirely undocumented.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0% and all seven parameters are untyped anyOf with no names explained (id, limit, offset, search, ordering, provider, max_pages). The description supplies zero meaning for any of them, leaving the agent to guess at pagination and filter 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 text describes an internal implementation detail ('override the list method to inject optimized data into the serializer context') rather than what the tool does. An agent cannot confidently infer that this lists requirement mapping sets, or what a 'mapping set' returns, from this wording.
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 tool, when to prefer a sibling such as ciso_assistant_api_requirement_mapping_sets_retrieve or requirement_mapping_sets_graph_data_retrieve, or what prerequisites exist. The sentence is a code comment, not usage instruction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.