List the caller's image jobs, newest first.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "list_images"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| before_id | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral fact beyond annotations: results are ordered newest first. It says nothing about pagination mechanics, result caps, or what happens when before_id is supplied, which matters for a list operation.
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, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no filler. Its brevity is efficient, though it leaves little room for the parameter detail the schema lacks.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values and the job object shape need not be restated. However, for a paginated list tool with two undocumented parameters, the description leaves the agent without enough to call it correctly on anything but the default first page.
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%, so the description carries the full burden for two parameters, yet it never mentions limit or before_id. "Newest first" hints at ordering and "caller's" implies implicit scoping, but the cursor semantics of before_id and the 1–100 range of limit are left entirely undocumented.
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 names a specific verb and resource ("List the caller's image jobs") and adds ordering ("newest first"), which lets an agent distinguish it from get_image and create_image. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative such as list_videos or get_image, so it stops short of full differentiation.
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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives like get_image for a single job, and no stated prerequisites. Usage is only inferable from the tool name itself.
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.