Skip to main content
Glama

Bucket Unlock File

bucket_unlock_file
Idempotent

Unlock a bucket file locked by this MCP connector.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYesBucket-relative file path, for example index.html or assets/app.js.
bucket_idYesRevdoku bucket id returned by bucket_list or bucket_get, for example bkt_...
account_idNoOptional account id from revdoku_status.accounts for this call only. Omit for the credential's default account. Client accounts require explicit Agency authorization; never infer an account from a bucket id.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fileYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / account_id
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "Optional account id from revdoku_status.accounts for this call only. Omit for the credential's default account. Client accounts require explicit Agency authorization; never infer an account from a bucket id.",
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
  2. First observed

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already communicate that this is mutating, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds the behavioral detail that only files locked by this MCP connector are affected, which is useful context, but it does not address error behavior or lock ownership beyond that.

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?

One clear, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The action, object, and locking scope are all stated efficiently.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Adequate for a simple, well-schematized operation: the action and affected resource are clearuit, and the schema plus annotations cover parameters and side effects. Still, it lacks context about the locking lifecycle or relationship to the broader bucket lock/unlock tool family.

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 coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to re-document parameters. It adds no independent parameter meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable but not compensational.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a clear action ('Unlock') on a specific resource ('a bucket file'), with the qualifier 'locked by this MCP connector' adding useful precision. It is not a tautology, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool bucket_unlock.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

Provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as bucket_unlock or bucket_lock_files, and no exclusions or preconditions. The description implies the context but does not explain it.

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.