ciso_assistant_api_terminologies_listList terminology entries from the CISO Assistant API with filters for folder, search, visibility, and ordering to support compliance and risk data mapping.
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 | ||
| builtin | No | ||
| ordering | No | ||
| max_pages | No | ||
| field_path | No | ||
| is_visible | 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 adds only an internal serializer-context implementation detail and does not disclose useful behavior such as filtering, pagination, or response shape.
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, but its brevity comes from under-specification rather than efficient communication. It is not front-loaded with agent-relevant purpose or usage information.
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 10-parameter list endpoint without an output schema or parameter descriptions, the description is far too thin. Annotations cover the safety profile, but the description leaves key retrieval and filtering behavior 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?
The tool has 10 parameters with 0% schema description coverage, including filters like folder, builtin, field_path, is_visible, and max_pages. The description provides no explanation for any parameter, leaving the agent with bare names and no 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 description says it overrides a list method, but it never states the resource being listed or what an agent would use it to retrieve. The tool name implies terminologies, but the description itself is an implementation note rather than a purpose statement.
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 versus siblings such as terminologies_retrieve, terminologies_cascade_info_retrieve, or other list endpoints. The mention of an overridden list method implies retrieval but gives no context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.