Google Cloud MCP Server

Create Static Site Bucket

create-static-site-bucket

Create a Cloud Storage bucket configured for static site hosting with uniform bucket-level access. Set bucket name, location, and project ID to provision it.

Instructions

Create a Cloud Storage bucket configured for static site hosting (uniform bucket-level access).

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": {
      "bucketName": "<bucketName>"
    },
    "name": "create-static-site-bucket"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`location`	No	Location for the bucket (default US)	US
`projectId`	No	Project ID (optional, uses default if omitted)
`bucketName`	Yes	Name for the bucket

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.5.0Sep 6, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the uniform bucket-level access setting, but does not disclose permissions needed, error behavior on existing bucket names, idempotency, costs, or what the response will be. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and key configuration detail. No filler or repetition.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what the tool returns, how it fits with the static-site deployment workflow (e.g., that upload/deploy is a separate step), or important constraints like globally unique bucket names.

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 description coverage is 100%, and all parameters (bucketName, location, projectId) have descriptions in the schema. The description adds no extra parameter information, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (create), the resource (Cloud Storage bucket), and the special configuration (static site hosting with uniform bucket-level access). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list/delete/deploy static site buckets.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as deploy-static-site-from-html or upload-static-site-html. The intended use is implied by the name but never stated explicitly, and no prerequisites or exclusions are provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server