List GRC issues and findings by state or owner to pinpoint compliance risks and streamline audit workflows.
List GRC issues/findings (sn_grc_issue), optionally by state or owner
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max records (default 50) | |
| owner | No | Owner/assigned user sys_id | |
| query | No | Search issues by short description | |
| state | No | Issue state filter |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.15.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety and data model openness. The description adds the table name and optional filters but does not disclose return format, pagination behavior, or ordering. With annotations covering the core safety profile, the description provides marginal additional value.
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?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and mentions the optional filters. There is no unnecessary verbosity or repetition.
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?
Without an output schema, the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., a list of issues, fields, pagination). However, the openWorldHint annotation may imply flexible results. The description covers the basic filtering options but omits behavioral details like default limits or response shape, leaving some gaps for an agent.
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 coverage is 100%, so all four parameters (limit, owner, query, state) have descriptions. The description reiterates the state and owner filters but adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.
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 clearly states the tool lists GRC issues/findings from the sn_grc_issue table, with optional filters by state or owner. This distinguishes it from related tools like list_grc_risks and list_grc_controls, making the purpose unambiguous.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention when to choose list_grc_issues over list_grc_risks or other list tools, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.