Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
cloudflare-mcp-pro

cloudflare-mcp-pro

by helbertparanhos
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

list_r2_buckets

Read-only

List all R2 buckets in a Cloudflare account, with optional filtering by name substring.

Instructions

List R2 buckets in an account.

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": "list_r2_buckets"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
account_idNoCloudflare account ID. Falls back to CLOUDFLARE_ACCOUNT_ID env var when omitted.
name_containsNoFilter buckets by name substring.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, which match the description. The description does not add further behavioral context (e.g., pagination, response format, error handling). With annotations covering the safety profile, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple read-only list tool, the description covers the basic purpose. However, with no output schema, it would benefit from mentioning the return format (e.g., list of bucket objects). Still, given the sibling context and annotations, it is minimally adequate.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters (account_id and name_contains). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is correct.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the action (List), the resource (R2 buckets), and the scope (in an account). It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like create_r2_bucket or delete_r2_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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many other list tools (e.g., list_workers, list_d1_databases). There is no mention of prerequisites, alternatives, or exclusions.

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