Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
viberoom

viberoom

by RatulMaharaj
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

list_images

List images from the library using filters for rating, flag, or edits. Returns metadata with image IDs for use in other tools.

Instructions

List images in the library with optional filters.

rating_gte: only images rated >= this (0-5). flag: 'pick', 'reject', or
'none' for unflagged. Returns metadata including each image's id, which
all other tools take.

Tool call template

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"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
flagNo
sortNofilename
limitNo
orderNoasc
offsetNo
has_editsNo
rating_gteNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that it returns metadata including id, but does not mention pagination behavior, default sort/limit, or explicitly state read-only nature (though 'list' implies it). Provides some value but misses richer behavioral context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with core purpose and key parameter details. No waste, efficiently structured despite a line break. Each sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has 7 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete: it covers only 2 parameters, gives partial return info, and lacks context on sorting/pagination. It is serviceable but leaves gaps for an agent needing to use it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It explains rating_gte (0-5) and flag (pick/reject/none), but omits sort, limit, order, offset, and has_edits, leaving 5 of 7 parameters without any explanation beyond schema titles. Incomplete compensation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool 'List images in the library' with optional filters, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_image by emphasizing it returns IDs for other tools, making its role as a listing/discovery tool evident.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description says returns ids 'which all other tools take', implying this is the entry point before using other tools. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, so it falls short of a full 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools