openstack-mcp-server

List servers

list_servers

Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists OpenStack servers in a project with flavor, image, addresses, and volumes, with pagination and filters by name, status, or project ID.

Instructions

List servers in the project with flavor, image, addresses and volumes.

Paged with limit and marker.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No	Name regex filter.
`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.

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

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description's useful addition is that results are pre-joined with flavor, image, addresses and volumes, but it says nothing about whether deleted/shelved servers appear by default or what happens when project_id is omitted.

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?

Two short lines, front-loaded with the purpose and the returned fields, then the paging note. No filler sentences.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations are rich, so the description doesn't need to explain return values; covering purpose plus enrichment fields and paging is close to sufficient. The only gap is routing against get_server and the semantics of the unmentioned status filter.

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?

With 80% schema coverage, the schema already documents name, limit, marker and project_id. The description only restates the paging parameters and never mentions the status filter or its enum values, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema.

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 servers") and adds what the records are enriched with (flavor, image, addresses, volumes), which distinguishes it from the singular get_server sibling. It doesn't explicitly name get_server as the detail-fetch alternative, but the list/detail split is clear enough from the wording.

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?

"Paged with limit and marker" is the only procedural hint, and that repeats what the schema already documents. There is no guidance on when to use this versus get_server, or on how the name/status filters interact.

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