retrieveObjectStoragesStatsList usage statistics about the specified object storage - List usage statistics about the specified object storage such as the number of objects uploaded / created, used object storage space. Please note that the usage statistics are updated regularly and are not live usage statistics.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x-trace-id | No | ||
| x-request-id | Yes | ||
| objectStorageId | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already indicate a read-only, non-destructive operation. The description adds the important behavioral trait that statistics are updated regularly and not live, plus examples of the data returned. This goes beyond the structured data.
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?
The description redundantly repeats the title phrase 'List usage statistics about the specified object storage' and then extends it. This wastes words and could be condensed into a single clear sentence. The staleness note is useful but the repetition is a structural flaw.
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?
For a simple read-only tool, the description covers the metric types and the non-live nature, but lacks details on the response structure and parameter semantics (especially the required headers). With no output schema, the description should more explicitly describe the return format, though the examples provide some guidance.
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%, with three parameters including two required. The description only refers to 'specified object storage,' which maps to objectStorageId, but gives no details about the format or the header parameters x-request-id and x-trace-id. It fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.
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?
The description clearly states the tool lists usage statistics for a specified object storage, with examples of the metrics included. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like retrieveObjectStorage, which presumably retrieves configuration details.
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?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like retrieveObjectStorage or retrieveObjectStorageList. The caveat that stats are not live implies a usage limitation but does not name alternatives or exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Many tools have clearly distinct CRUD roles per resource, but there are several confusing overlaps: start/stop/restart/shutdown/rescue are similar lifecycle actions, and there are duplicate audit tools like retrieveImageAuditsList and retrieveImageAuditsList1 (one even mislabeled as DNS Zones audit). Additionally, retrieveTagAuditsList appears to duplicate retrieveAssignmentsAuditsList, and updateDnsZoneRecord incorrectly says 'Create resource record'. These overlaps and mislabeled descriptions make it hard to pick the right tool.
The naming is a mix of camelCase verb_noun patterns, but inconsistent. Some tools use 'retrieveXList' while others use 'listX', some use 'Cancel' with a capital letter, and 'tool_search' uses snake_case. Numeric suffixes like 'retrieveImageAuditsList1' and verbs like 'patchInstance' instead of 'updateInstance' further break consistency.
With 124 tools, this is an extremely large tool surface for an MCP server. Even for a broad cloud provider API, this overwhelms an agent's context and selection capabilities. The number far exceeds reasonable scoping and creates unnecessary selection overhead.
The tool set covers a wide range of resources thoroughly: instances, snapshots, images, private networks, object storage, DNS, domains, tags, roles, users, secrets, and audits. Most resources have create/retrieve/update/delete lifecycle operations, and there are extensive audit history tools. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no explicit instance deletion besides cancel, no separate firewall management beyond upgradeInstance), but overall the surface is quite complete for its domain.