retrieveImageListList available standard and custom images - List and filter all available standard images provided by Contabo and your uploaded custom images.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| page | No | ||
| size | No | ||
| search | No | ||
| orderBy | No | ||
| x-trace-id | No | ||
| x-request-id | Yes | ||
| standardImage | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the tool as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds context about the scope (standard images from Contabo and custom uploaded images) but does not disclose behavioral details like pagination, filtering semantics, or result structure. With annotations covering safety, a score of 3 is appropriate.
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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. It repeats the phrase 'standard and custom images' from the title, making it slightly redundant, but the overall length is appropriate and the structure is easy to parse.
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 tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description is grossly insufficient. It does not mention pagination, filtering parameters, ordering, or return format. Given the large sibling list and the need for precise invocation, this description leaves out critical operational details.
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 the description provides no parameter-level explanations. The phrase 'List and filter' only vaguely implies filtering capabilities but never explains the 8 parameters (e.g., page, size, search, orderBy, standardImage). The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema descriptions.
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 and filters available images, specifying both standard and custom images. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like retrieveImage (singular) and createCustomImage by focusing on the list operation with clear resource 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?
The description implies usage for listing/filtering images but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives such as retrieveImage or retrieveCustomImagesStats. There is no when-not-to-use guidance or mention of sibling tools, so usage is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Many tools have clearly distinct CRUD roles per resource, but there are several confusing overlaps: start/stop/restart/shutdown/rescue are similar lifecycle actions, and there are duplicate audit tools like retrieveImageAuditsList and retrieveImageAuditsList1 (one even mislabeled as DNS Zones audit). Additionally, retrieveTagAuditsList appears to duplicate retrieveAssignmentsAuditsList, and updateDnsZoneRecord incorrectly says 'Create resource record'. These overlaps and mislabeled descriptions make it hard to pick the right tool.
The naming is a mix of camelCase verb_noun patterns, but inconsistent. Some tools use 'retrieveXList' while others use 'listX', some use 'Cancel' with a capital letter, and 'tool_search' uses snake_case. Numeric suffixes like 'retrieveImageAuditsList1' and verbs like 'patchInstance' instead of 'updateInstance' further break consistency.
With 124 tools, this is an extremely large tool surface for an MCP server. Even for a broad cloud provider API, this overwhelms an agent's context and selection capabilities. The number far exceeds reasonable scoping and creates unnecessary selection overhead.
The tool set covers a wide range of resources thoroughly: instances, snapshots, images, private networks, object storage, DNS, domains, tags, roles, users, secrets, and audits. Most resources have create/retrieve/update/delete lifecycle operations, and there are extensive audit history tools. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no explicit instance deletion besides cancel, no separate firewall management beyond upgradeInstance), but overall the surface is quite complete for its domain.