Create a new S3 bucket in an existing Hostkey S3 account. Provide a bucket name and set confirm to true to complete the operation.
Создать новый бакет в существующем S3-аккаунте (s3/create_bucket).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bucket | Yes | Имя бакета | |
| confirm | Yes | Must be true to run the operation. | |
| account_id | No | ID S3-аккаунта (если требуется; уточняйте через s3_get_users) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds the 'existing S3-account' prerequisite, which is useful. It does not disclose other behavioral aspects like reversibility or error handling, but it does not contradict the annotations.
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?
The description is a single short sentence, efficient and to the point. It includes a redundant endpoint reference in parentheses, but this does not significantly harm readability.
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?
The tool is simple and the schema covers parameters, but the description omits behavioral expectations such as the confirm requirement and what happens on success or failure. It is adequate for a straightforward create operation but lacks some contextual depth.
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 the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what is in the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.
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 clear verb (create) and resource (bucket), and adds context 'in existing S3-account'. However, it closely mirrors the tool name and does not differentiate from sibling S3 tools beyond the verb, so it stops short of a 5.
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 use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites like account existence or how to handle multiple accounts, nor does it note that confirm must be true or that account_id can be determined via s3_get_users. All such context is left to the schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.