@atengk/mcp-server-s3

get_bucket_location

Retrieve the physical deployment region for an S3-compatible bucket to verify its location before configuring access, replication, or region-specific operations.

Instructions

查询存储桶的物理实际部署地域

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "bucket": "<bucket>"
    },
    "name": "get_bucket_location"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`bucket`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Oct 4, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It reveals only that a region is returned; it says nothing about required permissions, behavior for non-existent buckets, and only weakly implies the return shape. That is a thin disclosure for a tool with zero structured safety metadata.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single short sentence with no filler and the key resource front-loaded. It is appropriately sized, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than efficient conciseness.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and undocumented parameters, the description should do more: it does not describe the return representation (e.g., a region code string), error conditions, or any usage constraints. For a tool whose structured metadata is entirely absent, this leaves notable gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The single 'bucket' parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the schema supplies no meaning at all. The description implies the parameter identifies the bucket to query but does not clarify the expected identifier format (name vs. ARN vs. path), leaving a real ambiguity unresolved.

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 specific verb and resource ('查询存储桶...地域' – query a bucket's physical deployment region), which is clearly distinguishable from siblings like list_buckets, create_bucket or stat_object. It is clear but does not explicitly contrast itself with any sibling.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., stat_object or list_buckets, which might also expose location-related metadata), nor any stated prerequisites or preconditions. The agent must infer the usage context entirely.

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