image_list_toolList and filter container images by key/value pairs to locate specific references for Podman management.
List images.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filters | No | Filter by key/value pairs (e.g. {"reference": ["ubi9"]}) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about read-only semantics, pagination, result ordering, or default scoping. "List" weakly implies a safe read, but that is inference rather than disclosure.
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?
At two words, this is under-specified rather than concise; there is no front-loaded scope or qualifier to structure. It is short, but brevity here reflects missing information rather than efficiency.
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 need not be explained, but the description still leaves the agent without listing scope, filter behavior, or pagination limits for a tool that sits among many similarly named list tools. It is not misleading, but it is materially incomplete.
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 100% and the single optional "filters" parameter is documented in the schema with a concrete example. Per the high-coverage baseline, 3 is appropriate, since the description adds no filter syntax or semantics of its own.
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 states a specific verb and resource ("List images"), so an agent can tell it acts on images rather than containers, pods, networks, or volumes. However, it adds nothing beyond the tool name and does not clarify scope (all images vs. filtered) relative to image_inspect_tool or image_pull_tool.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives such as image_inspect_tool for detail or image_prune_tool for cleanup, and no indication of prerequisites. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.