list_objectsLists visible objects, optionally filtered by key prefix, and hides items waiting in quarantine so agents can inspect available data without delete or approval access.
List the objects you can see. Objects waiting in quarantine are hidden.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| prefix | No | Only keys starting with this, e.g. 'reports/'. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context about visibility scoping—quarantined objects are hidden—but says nothing about pagination, ordering, permissions, or how hidden objects relate to the sibling deletion-request tools.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the key visibility constraint. There is no wasted wording.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only listing tool this is close to adequate, but with no output schema the description does not indicate the return shape, pagination behavior, or whether an empty result is possible—details an agent might need to use the results correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and the single prefix parameter is documented in the schema with an example. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond that, which is acceptable given the schema already carries the burden.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb+resource: 'List the objects you can see.' It is clearly a listing tool and is distinct from the deletion-request siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast with them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The implicit usage is obvious for a list tool, but the description provides no real routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.