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

s3-mcp-agent

by farishussain
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

inspect_bucket

Inspect Amazon S3 bucket configuration and view per-check collection coverage to verify settings and data collection status.

Instructions

Inspect bucket configuration and include per-check collection coverage.

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": "inspect_bucket"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bucketYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Inspect' weakly implies read-only, but it says nothing about required permissions, side effects, or what 'configuration' covers, and the extra coverage claim is not explained.

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 compact sentence with no filler. However, the second clause adds ambiguity rather than useful scope, so brevity comes at the cost of precision.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape needn't be explained. Even so, a tool whose purpose overlaps a dedicated sibling should clarify its boundary, and the undocumented parameter is left entirely undefined.

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?

The single 'bucket' parameter has 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not explain the expected identifier format, naming conventions, or how the bucket is resolved. The gap the schema leaves is not filled.

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 names a resource ('bucket configuration') and a verb ('inspect'), which is more than a tautology. However, it also claims to 'include per-check collection coverage', which overlaps directly with the sibling bucket_coverage_report, and gives no way to tell the two apart. Purpose is vague where it matters most.

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 on when to use this rather than bucket_coverage_report or permission_report, even though those siblings clearly overlap. No preconditions or exclusions are stated.

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