Retrieve and review available cloud images on the Hetzner platform, optionally filtering by ID or query for targeted results.
List images. Read only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | Fetch one by id. | |
| query | No | Filters, e.g. name, label_selector. | |
| verbose | No | Full payload. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Input schema / properties / id / descriptionPrevious value: -"Optional resource id to fetch a single item."New value: +"Fetch one by id."Input schema / properties / query / additionalProperties / anyOfRemoved value: -[
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "number"
- },
- {
- "type": "boolean"
- }
-]Input schema / properties / query / additionalProperties / typeAdded value: +[
+ "string",
+ "number",
+ "boolean"
+]Input schema / properties / query / descriptionPrevious value: -"Optional query parameters such as name or label_selector."New value: +"Filters, e.g. name, label_selector."Input schema / properties / verbose / descriptionPrevious value: -"Return full payload instead of the compact view."New value: +"Full payload."v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden; 'Read only' usefully discloses the safety profile. It stops there, offering nothing about pagination, result volume, or return shape.
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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The brevity is appropriate for a simple list tool, though it borders on under-specification.
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?
With 100% schema coverage, the omission of parameter detail is tolerable, and no output schema exists so return values need not be described. Still, for a tool with a nested query object and no annotations, the description is only minimally complete.
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%, so id, query, and verbose are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that baseline, which is acceptable but not additive.
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?
States a clear verb+resource ('List images') that an agent can immediately act on. It does not, however, differentiate from the many other cloud_list_* siblings, so an agent must rely on the resource noun alone.
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 description gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternatives. Given the density of similar list tools in the sibling set, basic routing context is missing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.