Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp_ruvds.com

mcp_ruvds.com

by firstend
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

ruvds_list_os

List available operating system images (Linux and Windows) to obtain the OS ID needed for creating a new server.

Instructions

List available OS images (id, name, type linux/windows). Use os_id in ruvds_create_server. Ubuntu 22.04 LTS and others.

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": "ruvds_list_os"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations present, so description bears full burden. States it 'list available OS images' but does not disclose pagination, rate limits, or authentication needs. The operation is safe and simple, so the lack is acceptable but not exemplary.

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?

Extremely concise: one sentence plus a usage hint. Front-loads the main verb 'List' and resource. No wasted words.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers purpose, key fields, and integration hint. Could mention that it returns a list, but that is implied.

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

Parameters4/5

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

No parameters exist (schema coverage 100%). Baseline 4 applies as description does not need to add parametric detail.

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

Purpose4/5

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

Description clearly states it lists OS images with fields id, name, type (linux/windows). Includes example 'Ubuntu 22.04 LTS'. Does not explicitly distinguish from sibling 'ruvds_list_templates', but the resource 'OS images' is distinct enough.

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?

Directly tells agent to 'Use os_id in ruvds_create_server', providing explicit downstream usage. No alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the hint is valuable.

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