Skip to main content
Glama

Revdoku

by com.revdoku

Bucket Get

bucket_get
Read-onlyIdempotent

Get one bucket, its files/current revision, website state, GitHub sync status/setup link, and archive/delete guidance. Pass file_limit and file_offset to page bucket.files. Set include_form_submissions=true to read visitor feedback with submitter identity, document selections, and a fixed 3x3 minimap; this requires write-capable bucket access. The minimap includes a 0/1 cells matrix and exactly three ASCII rows. Share bucket.website.submissions_review.url for visual submission review or bucket.github_sync_setup.settings_url to connect/manage GitHub; both are stable login-required deep links.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bucket_idYesRevdoku bucket id returned by bucket_list or bucket_get, for example bkt_...
file_limitNoOptional maximum number of files to include in bucket.files, up to 500. Omit to include all files for compatibility.
file_offsetNoOptional zero-based file offset used with file_limit. Use bucket.files_pagination.next_offset for the next page.
form_submission_limitNoMaximum submissions to return when include_form_submissions is true, up to 100.
form_submission_offsetNoZero-based submission offset for pagination.
include_form_submissionsNoInclude encrypted visitor submissions in the response. Requires write-capable access to this bucket.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bucketYes
form_submissionsNo
form_submissions_paginationNo

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark readOnly/idempotent, and the description adds meaningful non-obvious traits: include_form_submissions requires write-capable bucket access, the response includes a fixed 3x3 minimap with exactly three ASCII rows, and the deep links are stable login-required. This goes beyond the annotations and helps an agent anticipate auth nuances and response format.

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?

Four front-loaded sentences pack distinct facts: the main getter scope, file paging, form-submission behavior/auth, and link semantics. Every clause earns its place; the description is dense but well-organized and free of filler.

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?

Given the 6-parameter complexity and presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential calling conditions: paging, auth requirement for forms, and deep-link usage. Form submission paging params are left to the schema, which is acceptable since schema coverage is total, though explicit sibling routing would make this fully complete.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description mostly restates what the schema already says about file_limit/file_offset and include_form_submissions, with minor additional response detail (submitter identity, document selections, minimap) but no substantial new parameter semantics.

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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a clear reesource ('one bucket'), and enumerates concrete outputs (files/current revision, website state, GitHub sync status/setup link, archive/delete guidance). This distinguishes it from siblings like bucket_list or bucket_file_get without ambiguity.

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?

Clear context is provided for optional inputs: file_limit/file_offset page bucket.files and include_form_submissions requires write-capable access. However, the description never explicitly contrasts with siblings or states when-not-to-use alternatives, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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

All Revdoku toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but a few overlaps exist: bucket_file_move and bucket_file_rename both handle same-bucket renames/moves, and bucket_file_reorganize overlaps with copy/move operations. The detailed descriptions help clarify, but the boundaries aren't always obvious.

Naming Consistency4/5

The naming follows predictable patterns: bucket_<verb> for bucket-level actions, bucket_file_<verb> for file operations, bucket_publication_<verb> for publications, and website_preview_* for previews. Minor deviations like bucket_create_from_template, bucket_set_public_slug, and bucket_update_publication_access deviate slightly but remain readable.

Tool Count2/5

At 42 tools, the server is overweight for its scope. While the platform is feature-rich, many tools are narrowly specialized (e.g., bucket_publication_leads, bucket_lock_visibility_changes) and some are redundant (file_move vs file_rename vs file_reorganize), making the surface larger than necessary for an MCP server.

Completeness3/5

The tool set covers the full bucket lifecycle and most file operations, but there is no direct file delete tool (only via delete_missing in write_many or cross-bucket move soft-delete) and binary uploads are explicitly delegated to the CLI/REST. These are notable gaps for a complete file management workflow.

Resources