ciso_assistant_api_webhooks_endpoints_listRetrieve a list of webhook endpoints to manage integrations and event notifications.
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=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds no behavioral context at all – the serializer-context remark is an internal implementation detail with no observable consequence for a caller, so it neither helps nor contradicts.
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 that brevity is under-specification rather than conciseness: the single sentence is entirely wasted on an internal detail. Nothing useful is front-loaded for an agent deciding whether to call it.
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 list tool with five undocumented query parameters and no output schema, the description should at minimum say what collection is returned and how paging/search work. It supplies none of that, so an agent cannot call it reliably beyond guessing from the tool name.
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) have 0% schema description coverage and the description explains none of them. It does not even hint that the tool is paginated or searchable, leaving every parameter undocumented in both schema and prose.
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 a developer implementation note ('Override the list method to inject optimized data into the serializer context') rather than a statement of what the tool does. It never says the tool lists webhook endpoints, and a reader must infer the resource from the tool name alone. 'List method' hints at listing, but the purpose is effectively a restatement of internals.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus siblings such as ciso_assistant_api_webhooks_endpoints_retrieve or object_retrieve. Nothing about pagination needs, filtering, or prerequisites is mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.