openstack-mcp-server

List images

list_images

Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists OpenStack images visible to a project, with optional filters by name, status, visibility, and project; supports pagination via limit and marker.

Instructions

List images visible to the project, optionally filtered.

Paged with limit and marker.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No
`limit`	No	Maximum items to return (1-100, default 50).
`marker`	No	next_marker from the previous page; omit for the first page.
`status`	No
`project_id`	No	Project ID to work in; omit for the default project. Allowed values are listed by get_scope.
`visibility`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`items`	Yes
`limit`	Yes	Maximum number of items requested.
`complete`	Yes	True when no more items exist beyond this page.
`resource`	Yes	Resource type of the items.
`project_id`	Yes	Project whose session produced the list.
`next_marker`	No	Pass as marker to read the next page; null when complete or when the API has no marker paging.
`observed_at`	Yes	UTC time the list was read.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 30, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds scope ('visible to the project') and pagination mechanism, but does not provide richer behavioral context beyond that.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is two brief sentences with no wasted words and front-loads the core operation. Its brevity is appropriate, though it borders on under-specification for the filter parameters.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations cover safety, reducing the description's burden. However, for a six-parameter list tool with several undocumented filters, the description leaves meaningful gaps about what can be filtered.

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?

With 50% schema description coverage, the description should clarify the remaining filter parameters, especially name, status, and visibility. Instead, 'optionally filtered' is vague and the limit/marker mention merely restates schema descriptions.

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?

The description clearly states the action and resource: listing images visible to the project. It also notes optional filtering and paging, but does not explicitly distinguish this tool from the singular sibling get_image.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

It only says images can be 'optionally filtered' without naming filters or explaining when to use list_images versus get_image. There is no explicit guidance on alternatives or when-not to use it.

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