image_list_toolList container images through the Podman REST API and optionally filter by key/value pairs to locate specific images.
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?
The readOnlyHint annotation already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description adds nothing beyond that — no mention of whether results include all images or just local ones, ordering, or size of result set. It carries no behavioral weight of its own.
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?
Two words with no waste, but this is under-specification rather than disciplined concision. There is no front-loaded scope statement to anchor the reader.
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 omits the filtering capability that is the only parameter and says nothing about result scope. For a list tool in a crowded 30-tool namespace, this leaves too much to inference.
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 coverage is 100% and the single 'filters' parameter is documented with an example object, so the schema does all the work. The description contributes zero parameter meaning, which lands at the baseline for high schema coverage.
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?
"List images" states a verb and resource, so the basic purpose is inferable. But it is essentially a restatement of the name 'image_list_tool' and gives no scope or differentiation from sibling readers like image_inspect_tool or the many other *_list_tool variants.
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 indication of when to use this versus image_inspect_tool (detail on one image) or image_pull_tool/image_rm_tool. The agent gets no routing signal beyond the tool name, and no prerequisites or filtering use cases are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.