instabox-mcp

List machines

instabox_list_machines

Read-onlyIdempotent

List cloud Linux machines that are not deleted, with pagination and optional metadata-label filtering; use the returned cursor to fetch the next page.

Instructions

List your machines (any state except deleted), one page at a time. Optionally filter by metadata labels. Returns nextCursor; pass it back as cursor for the next page.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "instabox_list_machines"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Page size
`cursor`	No	`nextCursor` from the previous page
`metadata`	No	Only machines having every one of these labels, e.g. {"task": "review"}

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 1, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description's added value is the result scope (machines in any state except deleted) and the pagination contract with `nextCursor`, both of which an agent could not infer from annotations. It doesn't state a default page size or whether results are ordered, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, scope first, then filtering, then pagination — the order an agent needs them. No filler or restated title.

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?

With only three optional parameters and no output schema, the definition covers what is returned (`nextCursor`) and how to continue paging, which is the main correctness risk. Minor gaps: no default `limit` and no note on ordering or what a machine record contains.

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 description coverage is 100%, including the AND-semantics of `metadata` and the meaning of `cursor`/`limit`, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that `cursor` comes from `nextCursor` but adds no format or default-value detail 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?

Specific verb+resource ("List your machines") with an explicit scope qualifier ("any state except deleted") and a stated filter capability. The list-vs-get distinction against siblings like instabox_get_machine is inferable from the name but never spelled out in the description.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives concrete usage mechanics: filter by metadata labels if desired, and pass `nextCursor` back as `cursor` to page. It stops short of naming when to reach for this instead of instabox_get_machine or instabox_list_templates, so there are no explicit alternative-routing rules.

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