Skip to main content
Glama

list_buckets

Read-onlyIdempotent

List the Qencode Media Storage buckets available to the account.

Returns a `buckets` array; each entry has `name`, `region`
(us-west / eu-central), `created_at`, and `public`: true when the bucket is
served over an unauthenticated CDN endpoint (readable without a signed URL).
`public` is read-only here — bucket visibility is managed in the Qencode
portal, not via these tools.

Caveat: for a *just-created* bucket the `public` flag is not yet stable — it
starts `false` and flips to `true` within a few seconds up to ~a minute as
the CDN endpoint provisions. Don't cache a `public` value read right after
`create_bucket`; poll until it settles (see qencode://docs/storage).

Buckets are account-level (shared across the account's projects), not
per-project.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bucketsYes

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes beyond annotations by detailing the return shape (buckets array with name, region, created_at, public), explaining the public flag's meaning and eventual consistency after bucket creation, and clarifying account-level sharing. This is valuable context that annotations alone do not provide.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: it states the action first, then explains fields, provides a caveat, and ends with an account-level note. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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 simple read-only list tool with no parameters and an output schema, the description is fully complete. It covers return fields, the public flag's semantics, the eventual consistency caveat, and account-level behavior, leaving no significant gaps.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly mentions no parameters, and the input schema confirms this, so no additional parameter explanation is needed.

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 the Qencode Media Storage buckets for the account, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes this from siblings like list_objects by noting buckets are account-level and not per-project, 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 Guidelines4/5

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

Provides clear context for usage: buckets are account-level, visibility is managed in the portal (not via these tools), and warns not to cache the public flag after create_bucket. It implies when to use this list operation and gives a caveat about eventual consistency, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools are clearly distinct (list_buckets vs list_objects, search vs fetch docs). Minor overlap exists between transcode_video and start_encode2_raw (both submit jobs) and between get_job_status and get_job_status_detailed, but the descriptions explicitly state when to use which, making misselection unlikely.

Naming Consistency4/5

Names overwhelmingly follow verb_noun (create_bucket, list_buckets, get_download_url, transcode_video). A few deviations like start_encode2_raw, wait_for_job, and download_url_to_bucket break the pure pattern, but the convention is still easily predictable.

Tool Count5/5

13 tools is well-scoped for a video encoding platform: bucket management, transcoding submission/status/wait, result retrieval, and docs search/read. Each tool serves a clear purpose without redundancy or bloat.

Completeness4/5

The set covers the main lifecycle: create bucket, ingest via copy, transcode (two entry points), poll status, fetch result, and generate download URLs. Missing cancel/delete operations for jobs and buckets are notable but not critical for core workflows, and the docs tools help fill knowledge gaps.