ciso_assistant_api_webhooks_audit_sinks_listList audit sinks for webhooks to monitor security events and track integration activity. Retrieve sink configurations for auditing webhook traffic.
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, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered externally. The description adds no behavioral context such as pagination behavior (limit/offset/max_pages), search/ordering semantics, or response shape — and what it does say is about server internals rather than observable behavior.
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?
One short sentence, so not verbose, but brevity here is under-specification: the single sentence is spent on an implementation detail and carries no front-loaded purpose. Rewriting to state the resource and pagination contract would cost nothing in length.
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?
No output schema, five undocumented parameters, and a description that only describes a code override. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this list endpoint correctly — what it returns, how pagination/filtering works, or what an audit sink is — is available.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0% and four of five parameters are typed only as 'anyOf: {}' with no type or description. With limit, offset, search, ordering and max_pages completely undescribed in both schema and description, the description must compensate and does not mention any parameter at all.
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 is an internal implementation note ('Override the list method to inject optimized data into the serializer context') rather than a statement of what the tool does for a caller. It never says the tool lists webhook audit sinks, and only the tool name and title convey the resource. An agent reading the description alone would not know what is being listed.
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, no mention of the sibling endpoints (webhooks) or audit sink CRUD tools, and no exclusion criteria. The description discusses serializer internals, which tells an agent nothing about selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.