ciso_assistant_api_role_assignments_listLists role assignments in CISO Assistant with pagination, folder filtering, search, and ordering to retrieve access-control data.
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 | ||
| 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 and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context of its own — it talks about serializer context injection, which is meaningless to a caller and gives no clue about return shape, pagination, or filtering.
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, which is concise in length, but it is a developer docstring rather than an informative front-load; being brief here means being under-specified, not efficient.
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?
With 7 undocumented parameters, no output schema, and a description that says nothing about what is listed or returned, the definition is wholly inadequate for an agent deciding how to call this list endpoint.
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?
All seven parameters (id, limit, folder, offset, search, ordering, max_pages) have 0% schema description coverage and an empty anyOf schema, and the description explains none of them. For a list tool with paging and search params, this leaves the caller with no guidance on formats or semantics (e.g., what 'folder' scopes, what ordering syntax is accepted).
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 sentence describes an internal implementation detail ('Override the list method to inject optimized data into the serializer context') rather than telling the agent that this tool lists role assignments. The word 'list' is the only hint of the resource, and the actual domain object (API role assignments) never appears in the description.
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 statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or how it differs from the many available siblings such as ciso_assistant_api_role_assignments_retrieve, _object_retrieve, or _cascade_info_retrieve. The agent must infer everything from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.