One of the few good(ish) points Catholics raise against Sola Scriptura is that the Bible does not contain a list of its own books. Since a list of inspired books is not found in scripture, we must naturally go outside of scripture in order to know which books are scripture. Thus, Catholics argue, Sola Scriptura cannot be true. As fairly good as this argument is, it falls significantly short of success.
The first problem this argument suffers from is that it fundamentally misunderstands Sola Scriptura. There is a difference between "Scripture alone is authoritative" and "scripture alone is true". I don't think anyone in the world believes the latter. In reality, the Bible is full of things we must look to the outside world to understand, not least of which being how to read. In order to understand scripture, you must first learn how to read it. Or, if you remain illiterate, you must learn to at least understand the language of someone who can read it for you. So, obviously, there are many things we must go outside of the Bible to understand.
One of these things is the nouns the Bible describes. As an example, the Bible uses the word "sistrum" in 2 Samuel 6:5. What is a sistrum? The Bible does not tell us. Neither does it really need to. If the Bible had to explain every noun it described, it would effectively be infinite.
The thing about scripture is that it is also a noun. A standard dictionary definition of scripture would be something like "a sacred writing or Holy book". As Christians, we would of course distinguish between our scriptures and other allegedly sacred writings. Thus, a more accurate definition is that scripture is a written work given by inspiration of God.
Using this logic, the Bible does not need to include a full list of canonical books in order to support Sola Scriptura any more than it needs to give a full list of false gods in order for us to consider them false. The Bible does not mention Allah. The Bible does not mention Vishnu. The Bible does not even mention a lot of gods you would expect it to mention. For example, Jews were saved from Egyptian slavery, and yet very few Egyptian gods are mentioned. Do we need a full list of gods to know which ones we're not supposed to worship? No. So do we need a full list of scriptures to know which ones are inspired and useful for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work (2 Timothy 3:16-17)? No. No we do not.
Furthermore, we do not need an inspired list of books to know that all scripture is inspired for that very purpose. See, the same Paul who wrote that in his (scriptural) letter to Timothy was actually a hand chosen Apostle, selected by the Risen Lord as a steward of His mysteries (1 Corinthians 4:1). He had seen the Risen Lord, who commissioned him, and was behind the most eminent Apostle in nothing (2 Corinthians 11:5; 2 Corinthians 12:11). In other words, all authority the Apostles had, including to declare correct doctrine, Paul had. So, when he says all scripture is inspired by God, we can assume he is not plucking conclusions from thin air. Rather, he is being completely honest, and completely true.
But that is not even something Catholics usually dispute. There are some who would bash the Bible, but the modern Catholic Church does teach that the Bible is inspired by God, and so most Catholics likewise believe it. However, one thing Catholics must dispute in order to retain the authority of Catholic doctrine is that, as verse 17 says, the scriptures make "the man of God complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work". This, my friends, is the very definition of Sola Scriptura. Divinely inspired contents page or not, if scripture is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction and instruction in righteousness, that we may be complete and thoroughly equipped for every good work, then in spite of the protests of the Catholic Church, we do not need their doctrines, nor anything they can offer, in order to have a complete walk with God, or to do any good work.
Moreover, if scripture is useful for correction and reproof, then we can use it to correct and reprove the Catholic Church. That means we can show that, among other things, the Catholic Church professes a false gospel that is powerless to save. Far better to recognise that we are saved by grace, through faith, as a free gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast. If we proclaim any other message, we are no better off than the unbelievers.