Skip to main content
Glama
akave-ai

Akave MCP Server

by akave-ai

delete_object

Remove an object from a specified bucket in Akave's S3-compatible storage by providing the bucket name and object key.

Instructions

Delete an object from a bucket

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bucketYesBucket name
keyYesObject key

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function for the "delete_object" tool. It calls s3Client.deleteObject with the provided bucket and key, then returns a success response.
    async ({ bucket, key }) => {
      await this.s3Client.deleteObject(bucket, key);
      return {
        content: [{ type: "text", text: JSON.stringify({ success: true }) }],
      };
    }
  • Input schema validation using Zod for the bucket and key parameters of the delete_object tool.
    {
      bucket: z.string().describe("Bucket name"),
      key: z.string().describe("Object key"),
    },
  • src/server.ts:211-224 (registration)
    Registration of the "delete_object" tool on the MCP server, including name, description, schema, and handler function.
    this.server.tool(
      "delete_object",
      "Delete an object from a bucket",
      {
        bucket: z.string().describe("Bucket name"),
        key: z.string().describe("Object key"),
      },
      async ({ bucket, key }) => {
        await this.s3Client.deleteObject(bucket, key);
        return {
          content: [{ type: "text", text: JSON.stringify({ success: true }) }],
        };
      }
    );
  • Helper method in S3Client class that performs the actual deletion using AWS SDK's DeleteObjectCommand.
    async deleteObject(bucket: string, key: string) {
      const command = new DeleteObjectCommand({
        Bucket: bucket,
        Key: key,
      });
      return await this.client.send(command);
    }
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the destructive action ('Delete') but lacks critical details: it doesn't specify if deletion is permanent or reversible, mention authentication or permission requirements, warn about rate limits, or describe error conditions (e.g., if the object doesn't exist). This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information without redundancy.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given this is a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral risks, return values, or error handling, which are crucial for safe and effective tool invocation. The high schema coverage helps with parameters, but other contextual gaps remain significant.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('bucket' and 'key') clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying these parameters identify the object to delete, which is already evident from the schema. This meets the baseline score when schema coverage is high.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and resource ('an object from a bucket'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'delete_bucket' or 'update_object', which would require specifying it targets individual objects rather than buckets or modifications.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., object must exist), exclusions (e.g., not for buckets), or comparisons to siblings like 'delete_bucket' or 'update_object', leaving the agent to infer usage context from the name alone.

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/akave-ai/akave-mcp'

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