ciso_assistant_api_risk_matrices_listLists risk matrices from CISO Assistant, with filters for folder, provider, search, ordering, and enabled status to support risk management reporting.
Override the list method to inject optimized data into the serializer context.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| folder | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| search | No | ||
| ordering | No | ||
| provider | No | ||
| max_pages | No | ||
| is_enabled | 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 only an internal serializer-context implementation detail and says nothing useful about pagination, filtering behavior, or return characteristics.
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 sentence, but it is under-specified rather than usefully concise. The sentence describes an internal method override instead of front-loading actionable list behavior or filtering semantics.
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?
For a 9-parameter list tool with no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the description is completely inadequate. It gives the agent no information needed to invoke the tool correctly beyond the annotations.
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 9 parameters, and the description provides no meaning for id, limit, offset, search, ordering, folder, provider, max_pages, or is_enabled. With no schema descriptions and no compensating explanation, the parameters are effectively undocumented.
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 an internal implementation note ('Override the list method to inject optimized data into the serializer context') rather than a statement of what the tool does for an agent. It does not explicitly say it lists risk matrices, leaving the agent to infer the resource from the tool name and 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 guidance on when to use this list endpoint versus the many sibling list/retrieve tools. It provides no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.