Retrieves a list of all images embedded in a DOCX/OOXML document, enabling further processing of image data via MCP.
List all images
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": "docx.images_list"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. 'List' implies a non-destructive read operation, but the description does not disclose what the tool returns, whether an open document is required, or whether 'all images' includes images in headers, footers, or other document parts.
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 five-word sentence, front-loaded, and contains no filler or redundancy. Every word contributes to stating the tool's core purpose, and the under-specification is better captured in other dimensions.
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 zero-parameter tool this is minimally viable, but with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves gaps around the return format, the need for a document to be open, and the exact scope of 'all images'. Some additional context would make it safer for an autonomous agent to invoke and interpret correctly.
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 input schema has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The baseline of 4 applies because parameter explanation is unnecessary; there is no schema ambiguity to compensate for.
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 uses the specific verb 'List' with the clear resource 'images', making the action and scope unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from image mutation siblings like docx.image_add and docx.image_update_position by clearly indicating a read-only enumeration operation.
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 usage is implied by the action itself — 'List all images' suggests the agent should call this when it needs to enumerate images in the document. However, there is no explicit guidance about prerequisites (e.g., needing docx.open first), nor is any alternative or exclusion mentioned, leaving the guideline context minimal.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.