Get a decrypted S3 access key (s3/show_key). SECRET: do not log or share with third parties.
Get a decrypted S3 access key (s3/show_key). SECRET: do not log or share with third parties.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| s3uid | No | S3 account UID; omit only if the token is bound to a single S3 account | |
| key_type | Yes | Key type | |
| account_id | No | Deprecated alias for s3uid / get_users.id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.7Input schema / properties / account_id / descriptionPrevious value: -"Deprecated alias for s3uid"New value: +"Deprecated alias for s3uid / get_users.id"v1.0.4Input schema / properties / account_id / descriptionPrevious value: -"ID S3-аккаунта (если требуется; уточняйте через s3_get_users)"New value: +"Deprecated alias for s3uid"Input schema / properties / key_type / descriptionPrevious value: -"Тип ключа"New value: +"Key type"Input schema / properties / s3uidAdded value: +{
+ "description": "S3 account UID; omit only if the token is bound to a single S3 account",
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "number"
+ ]
+}v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations cover the safe-read profile (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), but the description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the value is decrypted and secret, with an explicit handling warning not to log or share. It stops short of noting audit logging or who is permitted to retrieve keys.
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, with the core action front-loaded and the security warning immediately following. Nothing is wasted and nothing important is buried.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining the return value, and it only says 'decrypted S3 access key' without specifying the response fields or how access_key versus secret_key selection affects output. Adequate for a three-parameter read, but the missing return shape is a real gap.
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%, so all three parameters, including the key_type enum and the conditional s3uid note, are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter semantics of its own, making baseline 3 correct.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: retrieves a decrypted S3 access key. The name and parenthetical endpoint mapping make it distinguishable from key-listing siblings like list_api_keys or get_api_key, though it never explicitly contrasts 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?
No guidance on when to call this versus alternatives such as s3_get_users or get_api_key, and no prerequisites stated (e.g., whether s3uid must be known first). Usage is only implied by the description and the schema's conditional field note.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.