ciso_assistant_api_teams_listList teams from CISO Assistant using pagination, search, and ordering parameters to support team management.
Override the list method to inject optimized data into the serializer context.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | 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, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds nothing a caller can act on — 'inject optimized data into the serializer context' is server-side jargon, and it omits any hint about result shape, pagination behavior, or whether the 'optimized data' changes the payload.
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 short, but the single sentence is spent on an internal implementation note rather than on the load-bearing information (resource, pagination, search). Brevity here comes from omission, not economy.
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 5 undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no annotation gaps to lean on for semantics, the description needs to carry nearly everything and carries nothing. An agent cannot tell whether this returns a paginated list of teams or what search/ordering accept.
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?
Five parameters (limit, offset, search, ordering, max_pages) exist with 0% schema description coverage and untyped anyOf schemas, so the description was the only place to explain them. It mentions none of them, leaving pagination, search syntax, and ordering format completely undefined.
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 (overriding a list method, injecting data into a serializer context) rather than what the tool does for a caller. The resource (teams) is never named and the verb 'list' only appears as a code artifact, so the agent must infer purpose entirely from the tool name.
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 versus ciso_assistant_api_teams_retrieve, teams_object_retrieve, or the other teams siblings. No prerequisites, filters, or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.