ciso_assistant_api_requirement_nodes_listLists and filters requirement nodes from CISO Assistant GRC data, enabling retrieval of compliance requirements by framework, URN, ID, search term, ordering, and pagination.
Override the list method to inject optimized data into the serializer context.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | ||
| urn | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| search | No | ||
| ordering | No | ||
| framework | 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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add one behavioral hint beyond that: the response is served from an optimized serializer context, implying enriched/prefetched payloads. But it says nothing about pagination, filterable fields, or default result size, so it is marginally better than the annotation baseline only.
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, front-loaded sentence with no padding, so in terms of size it is appropriately concise. However, the brevity comes at the cost of content: the sentence is spent on an implementation note rather than on the information an agent needs.
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?
An 8-parameter, filter/pagination-capable list endpoint with no output schema and 0% schema description coverage demands substantial explanation. The description explains none of it, leaving the agent unable to correctly supply search, ordering, limit/offset, or framework filters.
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% across 8 parameters (id, urn, limit, offset, search, ordering, framework, max_pages). The description supplies no meaning for any of them, so the agent has zero guidance on filter syntax, pagination semantics, or what 'framework' references. Under low coverage the description is required to compensate, and it does not.
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 merely restates an implementation detail ('Override the list method to inject optimized data into the serializer context') rather than stating that it lists requirement nodes. An agent learns nothing about the resource being listed or the scope, only about an internal DRF override. It is close to a tautological restatement of the name/title.
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 when-to-use guidance whatsoever. With siblings like requirement_nodes_retrieve, requirement_nodes_object_retrieve, and requirement_nodes_inspect_requirement_retrieve, an agent has no cue about when this list endpoint is the right choice versus single-object retrieval. Nothing in the text distinguishes it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.