create_bucketCreates a 30-day bucket and its secret bearer token.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bucket_name | Yes | Name of the newly created bucket. | |
| bucket_token | Yes | Bearer credential required with the bucket name for all other operations. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / descriptionPrevious value: -"Credentials for a newly created public sandbox bucket."New value: +"Credentials for a newly created sandbox bucket."Output schema / properties / bucket_name / descriptionPrevious value: -"Name of the newly created public sandbox bucket."New value: +"Name of the newly created bucket."Output schema / properties / bucket_token / descriptionPrevious value: -"Bearer credential required with the bucket name for public bucket and object operations."New value: +"Bearer credential required with the bucket name for all other operations."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations by specifying that the bucket is temporary (30 days) and that creating it also generates a secret bearer token, which clarifies side effects.
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 is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the primary action first and then adds the two most important facts: the 30-day duration and the secret token, making every word meaningful.
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 zero-parameter creation tool with annotations and an output schema present, the description is complete. It explains what resource is created and the key side effect, and it does not need to describe return values because the output schema already covers them.
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?
The tool accepts zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify and the schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description provides sufficient high-level meaning for the operation without needing to document inputs.
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 uses a specific verb ('Creates'), names the resource ('bucket'), and adds the key distinguishing details: the 30-day lifetime and the issuance of a secret bearer token. This clearly separates it from sibling tools that operate on objects, metadata, or permissions.
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?
No explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusionary statements are provided. Usage is implied rather than stated: among the sibling tools, only create_bucket creates a bucket, so an agent can infer when to call it, but the description does not explicitly say so.
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.