Orivox AI Website Builder

list_gallery_images

List the images the user ALREADY has in their Orivox media gallery -- uploads made on the editor's media page or through Orivox before -- as hosted URLs ready to use DIRECTLY in or apply_dom_ops set_attr.

Check here FIRST whenever the user mentions "my images", their gallery, or pictures they already uploaded, before asking them to upload or send anything. role="logo" lists the logo folder, "content" the general image folder, "all" (default) both, newest first. Each entry carries url, file_name, width/height (null when unknown), and modified_at. Returns the newest limit images (default 24, max 500); truncated=true with a larger total means older images exist -- re-call with a bigger limit only when the user actually needs them. Use the urls exactly as returned -- never rewrite them through the a12 grammar. Read-only; changes nothing.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`role`	No		all
`limit`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

First observedAug 4, 2026

TDQS

A5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden and does so thoroughly. It explicitly states the tool is read-only, returns newest-first, may include null dimensions, and indicates truncation behavior with `truncated=true`. It also warns against rewriting URLs, which is a critical behavioral constraint.

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 packed with necessary information but not bloated. Every sentence adds value: purpose, when to use, parameter explanations, and behavioral details. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and uses clear structure.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 2-parameter read-only list tool, the description covers all essential aspects: use case, parameter semantics, output fields, pagination, and safety. The output schema exists and the description complements it by explaining edge cases like null dimensions and truncation, making the tool fully understandable without external docs.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Although the schema has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), the description fully explains both parameters: `role` enum values and `limit` default/max, plus the meaning of `truncated=true` in the response. This is high-value semantics beyond raw schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool lists images the user already has in their Orivox media gallery and provides hosted URLs for direct use. It distinguishes itself from siblings by preemptively contrasting with upload requests ('Check here FIRST... before asking them to upload'), making the purpose unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicit usage guidance is given: check this tool first when the user mentions 'my images', their gallery, or already-uploaded pictures. It also advises against re-calling with a bigger limit unless truly needed, which is actionable alternative guidance.

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

All Orivox AI Website Builder tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools pair a distinct action with a distinct resource and long descriptions make intent clear. Still, `search_domains` already provides exact-domain checks, overlapping with `check_domain`, and the `create_project` vs `create_new_site` vs `create_page` cluster takes careful reading.

Naming Consistency5/5

The vast majority are snake_case verb_noun: list_projects, create_project, delete_page, get_preview_url, write_asset, query_database, publish_website. The only visible outlier is whoami, but it is standard enough that it does not disrupt predictability.

Tool Count2/5

At 36 tools this is meaningfully heavier than the rubric's 'too many' threshold, even though the scope spans websites, backends, domains, gallery images, and databases. It makes selection harder and a sizeable portion of the surface is niche or lifecycle internal.

Completeness4/5

The core site lifecycle is well covered: project, htmlmanag, assets, preview/publish, validation, deletion, uploaded images, backend files/logs, database reading, domain search and purchase linking. Workable non-critical gaps exist, e.g. no separate project metadata rename and no direct way to delete database rows or a database outside of deleting the project.

Resources

Need Help?