Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
s3-mcp-agent

s3-mcp-agent

by farishussain
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

bucket_coverage_report

Reports which supported configuration checks for an S3 bucket were collected, absent, denied, or unsupported, helping identify coverage gaps.

Instructions

Report which supported configuration checks were collected, absent, denied or unsupported.

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": "bucket_coverage_report"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bucketYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It identifies the report categories but does not state that the tool is read-only, what permissions are required, whether it has side effects, or how the bucket limits the report.

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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its terseness contributes to the ambiguity around bucket scope and check types.

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?

The output schema can explain return values, but the description still omits essential invocation context: what bucket means, how to choose it, and when this report should be used instead of sibling tools. For a tool with no annotations and an undocumented required parameter, it is under-specified.

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?

The sole required parameter, bucket, has 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions the parameter, its meaning, or its expected format. It adds no semantic information beyond the bare schema field name.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: reporting which supported configuration checks are collected, absent, denied, or unsupported. However, it does not mention the bucket scope, and 'supported configuration checks' is not defined enough to clearly distinguish it from siblings such as permission_report or inspect_bucket.

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 about when to use this tool instead of permission_report or inspect_bucket, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The description implies it is a reporting tool, but the agent must infer its role from the name and sibling list.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools