ciso_assistant_api_timeline_entries_listRetrieve and filter CISO Assistant timeline entries by incident, search term, or ID, with pagination and ordering controls for compliance tracking.
Override the list method to inject optimized data into the serializer context.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| search | No | ||
| incident | 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 and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds only an internal serializer-context remark and discloses nothing useful such as pagination, filtering behavior, or what the 'optimized data' means for results.
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, so it is compact, but conciseness only earns credit when content is meaningful. Here the sole sentence is implementation jargon that conveys no actionable information, so the brevity reflects under-specification.
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 read-only list endpoint with seven undocumented query parameters and no output schema, the definition should explain filtering, paging and return shape. Annotations cover the read-only nature, but the description supplies nothing about how to call it correctly.
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?
Seven parameters (id, limit, offset, search, incident, ordering, max_pages) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description mentions none of them. Neither the schema nor the description explains what any of these filters or paging controls do, leaving a full gap.
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 text describes an internal implementation detail ('Override the list method to inject optimized data into the serializer context') rather than stating what the tool does for a caller. An agent can only infer from the tool name/title that this lists timeline entries; the description itself never names the resource or its scope.
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, when not to, or how it differs from siblings like ciso_assistant_api_timeline_entries_object_retrieve or _retrieve. The sentence is addressed to a developer overriding a method, not to an agent choosing a tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.