List Ceph RBD images with size, features, and snapshot counts, optionally filtered to one pool or target.
[READ] RBD images (optionally one pool): size, features, snapshot count.
Args: pool: Restrict to a single pool name; omit for all pools. target: Ceph target name from config; omit for the default.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pool | No | ||
| target | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.11.5v0.3.0v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint=true annotation already establishes this as a safe read, and the '[READ]' tag is consistent with it. The description adds the returned field set but says nothing about permissions, pagination, or behavior on a nonexistent pool/target, so it adds only modest context beyond the annotation.
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?
Front-loaded summary sentence followed by a tight Args block; every line is load-bearing and there is no redundancy.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description correctly compensates by naming the returned fields, and both parameters are explained despite zero schema coverage. It is nearly complete for a read-only list tool, missing only edge-case behavior.
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% – the properties carry only a 'title' – so the description carries the full burden, and it does document both parameters, including the meaning of omission for each. It stops short of giving format examples (e.g., a target name syntax) or default behavior details.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('RBD images') and even enumerates the fields returned (size, features, snapshot count), which cleanly separates it from the write-oriented siblings rbd_image_create, rbd_image_delete, and the snapshot tools. An agent can identify it without opening the schema.
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 explains the scoping behavior of both parameters ('omit for all pools', 'omit for the default'), which implies when to pass them, but it names no alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions. Usage is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.