Skip to main content
Glama
KonMam

s3-mcp

by KonMam

delete_object

Remove objects from AWS S3 buckets to manage storage and maintain data hygiene by specifying bucket name and object key.

Instructions

Deletes an object from an S3 bucket.

Args: bucket (str): The name of the bucket. key (str): The key (name) of the object.

Returns: str: JSON formatted S3 response.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bucketYes
keyYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Implementation Reference

  • The MCP tool handler for 'delete_object', decorated with @mcp.tool(). It invokes the core deletion logic and formats the response as JSON.
    @mcp.tool()
    def delete_object(bucket: str, key: str) -> str:
        """Deletes an object from an S3 bucket.
    
        Args:
            bucket (str): The name of the bucket.
            key (str): The key (name) of the object.
    
        Returns:
            str: JSON formatted S3 response.
        """
        result = _delete_object_logic(bucket=bucket, key=key)
        return format_response(result)
  • Helper function containing the core logic: obtains S3 client and calls boto3 delete_object.
    def _delete_object_logic(bucket: str, key: str) -> Dict[str, Any]:
        """Core logic to delete an object from an S3 bucket.
    
        Args:
            bucket (str): The S3 bucket name.
            key (str): The S3 object key.
    
        Returns:
            Dict[str, Any]: Raw boto3 response from delete_object.
        """
        client = get_s3_client()
        return client.delete_object(Bucket=bucket, Key=key)
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Deletes') and return format, but fails to mention critical aspects like permissions required, whether deletion is permanent/irreversible, error handling (e.g., for non-existent objects), or rate limits. For a destructive operation, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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?

The description is efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the tool, and the subsequent lines explain inputs and outputs without redundancy. It's front-loaded and wastes no words.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (destructive operation with 2 parameters), no annotations, but an output schema exists, the description is minimally adequate. It covers purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral details like safety warnings or error handling. The output schema mitigates the need to explain return values, but overall completeness is moderate with room for improvement.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explicitly documents both parameters ('bucket' and 'key') with brief explanations of their roles, adding meaningful context beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't detail format constraints (e.g., bucket naming rules) or examples, keeping it somewhat basic but adequate given the low parameter count.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Deletes') and resource ('an object from an S3 bucket'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'delete_objects' (plural) and 'copy_object'/'get_object' which perform different operations. It precisely identifies what the tool does 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 Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'delete_objects' (for multiple objects) or other S3 operations. It lacks context about prerequisites, error conditions, or typical use cases, offering only basic functional information without comparative or exclusionary advice.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/KonMam/s3-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server