omv-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

list_images

Lists Docker images on your OpenMediaVault NAS, showing repository, tag, ID, and size. Quickly inspect available images to manage your container deployments.

Instructions

Docker images (repo, tag, id, size).

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": "list_images"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.1Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only lists the output fields and does not explain whether the operation is read-only, requires permissions, contacts the Docker daemon, or has any side effects. The minimal detail gives limited behavioral insight.

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?

The description is a single compact phrase, 'Docker images (repo, tag, id, size)', with zero waste. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity and front-loads the resource immediately.

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?

For a parameterless list operation, the description provides the essential output fields and resource. While it could be more explicit by stating 'Lists all Docker images', the current description is adequate given the tool's simplicity and the absence of output schema.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema confirms no inputs. The description does not need to explain parameters, so the baseline of 4 is appropriate. It adds no parameter-related ambiguity.

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 'Docker images (repo, tag, id, size)' clearly identifies the resource (Docker images) and the data fields returned, and the tool name implies the list action. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_containers and list_volumes, though it lacks an explicit verb 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 Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or context that would help an agent decide between this and similar listing tools.

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