List storage buckets on the account.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "edge_list_buckets"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that this is a read-only listing operation scoped to the account, which is useful and accurate. However, it does not mention pagination, response format, or any account/project context requirements, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.
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?
The description is a single six-word sentence that leads with the verb and resource, with no filler, redundancy, or restatement of the tool name. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter list tool.
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 zero-parameter tool, the description covers the core action and scope, but it lacks any detail about the returned data shape since no output schema exists. Given no annotations to supplement this, there are noticeable gaps, though the tool is simple enough to function with this definition.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The schema is empty and the description introduces no parameter-related confusion. This aligns with the baseline for zero-parameter tools.
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 ('List') and resource ('storage buckets') with an explicit scope ('on the account'). Among sibling tools, no other tool lists buckets, so it is distinct from edge_list_projects, edge_list_vms, and other resource-specific list tools. This is a clear, unambiguous purpose statement.
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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. It implies that the tool is for listing storage buckets, and an agent can infer this from the resource name, but there is no direct comparison to sibling list tools or mention of exclusions.
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.