IronShard Object Storage Sandbox

List Objects

list_objects

Read-onlyIdempotent

List one page of objects and path-like prefixes, ordered by key.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "bucket_name": "<bucket_name>",
      "bucket_token": "<bucket_token>"
    },
    "name": "list_objects"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`prefix`	No	Only return keys beginning with this prefix.
`page_size`	No	Maximum objects to return, from 1 to 1000.
`recursive`	No	True for a flat listing; false for immediate children.
`page_token`	No	Opaque continuation token from the preceding page.
`bucket_name`	Yes	Bucket to operate on.
`bucket_token`	Yes	Secret bearer token returned with the public bucket.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`objects`	No
`bucket_name`	Yes	Bucket to operate on.
`common_prefixes`	No	Immediate child prefixes when recursive is false. They behave like directories, although object storage has no real directories.
`next_page_token`	No	Opaque token for the next page. Pass it unchanged as page_token; null means there are no more results.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 3, 2026
- changedOutput schema / properties / objects / items / properties / object_key / examples
```
Previous value: -[
-  "reports/summary.json"
-]New value: +[
+  "data.parquet",
+  "reports/summary.json"
+]
```
First observedSep 1, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavior: it returns 'one page' (pagination), 'path-like prefixes' (listing format), and 'ordered by key' (ordering guarantee)—details not covered by annotations.

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?

A single, compact sentence that immediately states the action and key behaviors. No filler or redundant phrases; every word contributes meaning.

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 read-only listing operation with a rich output schema and fully documented parameters, the description is complete. It provides the essential nuances (one page, ordering, path-like prefixes) without needing to repeat schema details. A small addition like mentioning pagination continuation via page_token could be useful, but the schema already explains that.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%; every parameter (prefix, page_size, recursive, page_token, bucket_name, bucket_token) already has a clear description in the input schema. The description does not add any extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('objects and path-like prefixes'), plus the ordering ('ordered by key'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling write/delete tools because it is a read-only listing operation.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. However, the name and description clearly imply it is for listing objects, and the sibling tool names (upload_object, delete_object, etc.) make the intended use obvious. Still, there is no alternate tool comparison or exclusion statement.

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

All IronShard Object Storage Sandbox tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?