List S3 buckets and usage statistics for a Hostkey account via AWS API. Optionally filter by account ID.
Список бакетов S3-аккаунта и статистика использования через AWS API (s3/get_buckets).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering basic safety. The description adds only 'via AWS API' and mentions usage statistics, but doesn't disclose response format, error behavior, or how the optional account_id is handled. No contradiction, but limited added value beyond 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, focused sentence with no fluff. It front-loads the main purpose and includes the API reference in parentheses, which is concise and effective.
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?
Given no output schema, the description at least mentions what is returned (bucket list and usage stats), but doesn't specify the structure or how the optional parameter changes results. For a simple read-only list operation, this is adequate but leaves room for clarification about the optional account_id behavior.
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 coverage for the single parameter is 100%, including a useful description that clarifies it's optional and points to s3_get_users for the ID. The tool description adds nothing about parameters beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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?
Description clearly states the tool lists S3 buckets and usage statistics, using a noun form ('Список') but with a clear resource and action. It does not explicitly contrast with the similar sibling s3_get_buckets_via_queue, so it doesn't fully differentiate, but the purpose is unambiguous.
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. The parameter description hints at using s3_get_users for account ID, but there is no mention of when to prefer this over s3_get_buckets_via_queue or any other tool. The agent must infer usage from the name and context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.