List and filter saved images by category. Returns image summaries for review, while get_image provides detailed annotations and viewing URLs.
List images saved in Image Label, optionally filtered by category (case-insensitive). Returns summaries; use get_image for annotations and the viewing URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| category | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that results are summaries and that annotations/viewing URL require get_image, and that category filtering is case-insensitive, but it omits read-only safety, authentication needs, pagination, and rate limits. Adequate but not rich behavioral context.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by the alternative to get_image. No filler; every clause adds information.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be detailed, but the description still usefully notes that results are summaries. It covers the only parameter and the key alternative (get_image). Missing pagination/auth details are minor for a simple list tool.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must define the sole parameter. It clarifies that category is optional and case-insensitive, adding filtering semantics beyond the schema's bare string/null type. It stops short of describing exact vs. partial matching or allowed values.
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 specific verb and resource ('List images saved in Image Label') plus the optional category filter. Explicitly distinguishes itself from get_image by noting it returns summaries while get_image provides annotations and the viewing URL. An agent can identify its role without opening the schema.
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?
Gives a clear routing rule: 'use get_image for annotations and the viewing URL,' which tells the agent when this tool is insufficient. Establishes that this is for listing/summaries and optional category filtering, but does not discuss other siblings or when-not-to-use conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.