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.

Each bucket also carries `destination_prefix` (job `destination.url` =
`{destination_prefix}/{new filename or folder}`) and, when `public` is
true, `cdn_origin`. Copy these strings; do not assemble the host.
Do not copy a listed file's `destination_url` as dest — that is the
existing object (use it as `source`). `s3://<name>/…` is rejected (the
API demands `key`/`secret`).

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).

SCOPE — every storage tool here reuses the caller's existing Qencode
sign-in. There is no separate storage permission and no second approval
prompt, including for the tools that write. They also operate on the WHOLE
ACCOUNT rather than the current project: this call lists every bucket the
account owns, and anything created or written is visible to all of that
account's projects. Surface that to the user before acting on storage on
their behalf.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
errorNo
bucketsYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedOutput schema / properties / buckets / items / properties / cdn_origin
      Added value: +{
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / buckets / items / properties / destination_prefix
      Added value: +{
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedOutput schema / properties / error
      Added value: +{
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds significant behavioral detail beyond that: the public flag is read-only, the timing instability for new buckets, the instruction to copy exact strings rather than assemble hosts, the rejection of s3:// prefixes, and the account-wide visibility. These are not inferable from annotations and are crucial for correct use.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is lengthy but every section earns its place: it covers output structure, field semantics, caveats, and scope. It is organized into clear paragraphs and front-loads the core purpose. While it could be tightened slightly, the density of critical information justifies the length.

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?

The tool has no parameters and a read-only operation, but the description fully covers the output schema meaning, edge cases (CDN provisioning lag), and account-scope implications. It even warns against common misuse (copying destination_url as dest, using s3:// scheme). For an agent to call this correctly and interpret results, nothing essential is missing.

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 there is nothing to describe. The description correctly omits parameter details; the schema is empty. Per rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate when no parameters exist, and the description doesn't need to compensate for schema gaps.

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 opens with a precise verb-resource pair: 'List the Qencode Media Storage buckets available to the account.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings like list_objects (which lists objects within a bucket) and create_bucket (which creates a bucket). The scope is explicit: it lists all buckets for the account, not just the current project.

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?

The description provides extensive usage context: it states the returned data fields, warns about not caching the public flag for just-created buckets, and explains the account-wide scope and lack of separate permissions. It does not explicitly name alternatives like 'use create_bucket to create' but the purpose is clear enough that an agent would not confuse it. The SCOPE section effectively tells when and how to use this tool in the broader storage context.

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.