openstack-mcp-server

List networks

list_networks

Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists a project's OpenStack networks or shared networks visible to it, with status filtering and limit/marker pagination for bounded results.

Instructions

List the project's networks, or shared networks with shared=true.

Paged with limit and marker.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Maximum items to return (1-100, default 50).
`marker`	No	next_marker from the previous page; omit for the first page.
`shared`	No	List shared networks visible to the project, whatever their owner, instead of the project's own networks.
`status`	No
`project_id`	No	Project ID to work in; omit for the default project. Allowed values are listed by get_scope.

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

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes the pagination trait ('Paged with limit and marker'), though that is also visible in the schema's limit/marker fields, and adds nothing about result ordering or the status filter's effect.

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?

Two short sentences with the primary behavior front-loaded. The second sentence on paging largely restates what limit and marker already document, so it is slightly redundant but not wasteful.

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?

The tool has no required parameters and an output schema, so return format need not be described. The main remaining gap is the undocumented status filter and any default ordering, but overall the description is sufficient to invoke correctly.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 80%, so the schema already explains limit, marker, shared and project_id in detail. The description only echoes limit/marker paging and the shared flag, and says nothing about the undocumented status parameter or the allowed status values.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the project's networks') and adds the shared-network variant, which distinguishes the two listing modes. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like list_subnets or get_network, but the resource is unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The shared=true alternative is named, giving partial routing guidance, but the description never says when to use this instead of get_network (single lookup) or how it relates to list_subnets. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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