@atengk/mcp-server-s3

move_object

Moves or renames an object in S3-compatible storage by copying it to the target key and deleting the source, atomically completing the relocation across buckets.

Instructions

原子化移动与重命名对象（复制成功后自动删除源对象）

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": {
      "source_key": "<source_key>",
      "target_key": "<target_key>"
    },
    "name": "move_object"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`source_key`	Yes
`target_key`	Yes
`source_bucket`	No
`target_bucket`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Oct 4, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose two important traits: the operation is atomic and the source object is removed after a successful copy, which is real destructive-behavior context. However it says nothing about target overwrite behavior, cross-bucket implications, or failure/rollback semantics.

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 tight sentence with the key semantic (atomic move plus automatic source deletion) front-loaded in parentheses. No waste, though it is arguably too terse for a 4-parameter mutation tool.

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?

For a destructive, multi-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is under-specified: bucket parameters, overwrite behavior, and error semantics are absent. The core move semantics are covered, but not enough for an agent to call it confidently in edge cases.

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?

Four parameters with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate and does not. It never explains source_key/target_key semantics for renaming or how source_bucket/target_bucket behave (defaults, cross-bucket moves), leaving half the parameters undocumented everywhere.

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 precise verb pair plus resource: atomically moves and renames an object, and clarifies the difference from a plain copy by noting the source is deleted after a successful copy. This implicitly distinguishes it from copy_object without naming it, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as copy_object plus delete_object, nor when not to use this tool. The only implicit signal is the embedded 'delete source after copy' semantics.

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