@atengk/mcp-server-s3

s3_ping

Tests S3-compatible endpoint reachability, measures network RTT, confirms the effective region, and returns the masked authentication identity.

Instructions

毫秒级自检端点连通性、网络 RTT、生效 Region 与脱敏鉴权身份

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "s3_ping"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Oct 4, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the auth identity returned is masked (脱敏) and that RTT/Region are surfaced, implying a read-only probe, but it never states that the call is non-destructive, side-effect free, or requires no permissions.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the verb and lists the checked dimensions with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a trivial no-arg endpoint, though the terse list style leaves nothing explaining what the output looks like.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a no-parameter, no-output-schema diagnostic tool, the description covers the meaningful surface: it tells the agent what the call probes and that identity is redacted. Only the safety/side-effect profile is left unstated.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is no argument surface for the description to clarify further.

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 names a specific verb (自检/self-check) and enumerates exactly what is checked: endpoint connectivity, network RTT, effective Region, and masked auth identity. That is far more specific than the bare name s3_ping and clearly separates it from the object/bucket manipulation siblings, though it never explicitly says it is a diagnostic-only tool.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied — '自检' suggests a health/diagnostic check, but there is no statement of when to call it, what problem it solves, or how it relates to the other S3 tools. No alternatives or exclusions are named.

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