ciso_assistant_api_user_groups_listList user groups from the CISO Assistant GRC API with optional filters, ordering, and pagination to retrieve group data for access and compliance management.
Override the list method to inject optimized data into the serializer context.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| folder | No | ||
| offset | 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, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds nothing behavioral — no note on what the "optimized data" means for the response, no pagination or permission context; it reads as a code comment leaked into user docs.
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 with no filler, but the sentence's content is not useful to an agent, so brevity does not translate into value.
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?
A paginated list endpoint with six undocumented parameters and no output schema needs the description to explain filtering, ordering and return shape; instead it delivers only an internal serializer note. An agent cannot call this correctly from the definition alone.
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?
Six parameters (id, limit, folder, offset, ordering, max_pages) have 0% schema description coverage, and the description mentions none of them. The description must compensate for that gap and instead contributes zero parameter meaning.
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 restates 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. It never names the resource being listed, so the agent must infer "user groups" from the tool name alone.
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 sibling list/retrieve tools (e.g. user_groups_retrieve, users_list, teams_list), and no mention of filtering or pagination scenarios. Only the bare verb "list" weakly implies its usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.