@atengk/mcp-server-s3

put_object_text

Write or overwrite a text object in S3-compatible storage by specifying its key and content, with optional bucket and content type.

Instructions

文本直接写入或覆盖对象

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": {
      "key": "<key>",
      "content": "<content>"
    },
    "name": "put_object_text"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`key`	Yes
`bucket`	No
`content`	Yes
`content_type`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Oct 4, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does disclose that the operation writes or overwrites an object, but it omits critical details like required permissions, whether the bucket must exist, how existing content is handled, and what the operation returns.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is a single short phrase, which is concise but severely under-specified for a mutation tool with four parameters and no annotations. It lacks structure and sufficient content to earn its place as a useful description.

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 the complexity of a write tool with four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too sparse. It does not cover parameter meanings, permissions, return behavior, or usage context, leaving the definition materially incomplete.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description is solely responsible for clarifying the four parameters. It adds no meaning beyond the tool name, failing to explain key, bucket, content, or content_type, and thus leaves required parameters undocumented.

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 states a specific verb and resource: writing text directly to or overwriting an object. This clearly distinguishes it from read operations, but it does not explicitly name or contrast with close siblings like upload_file or read_object_text, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as upload_file or other write tools. There is no mention of conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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