list_proxiesLists proxies available to the current organization. Returns opaque IDs and non-sensitive metadata only; connection details and credentials are never included.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| item | No | ||
| error | No | ||
| success | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral detail by stating that connection details and credentials are never included, which helps agents avoid expecting sensitive data from this tool.
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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by a key behavioral constraint. No unnecessary words 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?
With zero parameters, an output schema present, and a simple listing function, the description is fully complete. It states what the tool does, its scope, and what it returns, with no additional required context.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information (since none exist) but correctly sets expectations about what the tool returns. This meets the baseline for a parameterless tool.
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 proxies available to the current organization, with a specific verb and resource. It also specifies that only opaque IDs and non-sensitive metadata are returned, distinguishing it from other list tools like list_storage_destinations or list_templates.
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 provides clear context: the tool is for listing proxies for the current organization. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this over alternatives or any exclusions, but the scope is clear enough that an agent would not confuse it with sibling tools.
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.
Most tools have clear, distinct purposes: image creation, template management, usage checks, and org resources are separated. The main ambiguity is between create_image and create_batch_images, since both create images and the batch variant's exact relationship to a single image request is not fully specified.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case: create_*, list_*, get_*, check_*, and update_*. The naming is predictable and makes the tool's action and target resource immediately clear.
With 12 tools, the set is well-scoped for an HTML/CSS to image service. Each tool covers a distinct part of the workflow: image generation, templates, batching, usage monitoring, and organization resources, without unnecessary bloat.
The core lifecycle is well covered: images can be created from HTML, URL, or template; templates can be created, updated, listed, and versioned; usage and limits are exposed. The main gap is the absence of a delete_template tool, and proxies/storage destinations are only listable with no management operations.