list_bucketsList the buckets of one storage connection that this access grant can see. list_connections already includes buckets; use this to refresh a single connection.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| connectionId | Yes | Connection ID from list_connections |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| stale | Yes | ||
| buckets | Yes | ||
| refreshedAt | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / properties / refreshedAtAdded value: +{
+ "type": "string"
+}Output schema / properties / staleAdded value: +{
+ "type": "boolean"
+}Output schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "buckets"
-]New value: +[
+ "buckets",
+ "refreshedAt",
+ "stale"
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "buckets": {
+ "items": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "buckets"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about access-grant scoping and single-connection refresh behavior, enhancing transparency beyond the annotations without contradicting them.
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?
Two sentences with no filler: the first states the action and scope, the second provides the sibling-tool distinction and usage condition. Every word earns its place and the key information is front-loaded.
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 low-complexity, one-parameter read-only tool with a full output schema and comprehensive annotations, the description covers the essential scoping and usage context. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.
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?
With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already explains connectionId as 'Connection ID from list_connections.' The description reinforces that it is a single storage connection but adds little new semantic meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List the buckets of one storage connection that this access grant can see.' It explicitly distinguishes itself from list_connections by noting that list_connections already includes buckets, so an agent can immediately tell the two apart.
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 gives clear usage direction: use this to refresh a single connection, and notes that list_connections already includes buckets. This names the alternative and the condition for selecting this tool, leaving no ambiguity about when to call it.
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.