Google Cloud MCP Server

List Storage Buckets

list-static-site-buckets

List Cloud Storage buckets configured for static website hosting in a Google Cloud project. Provide a project ID to filter results.

Instructions

List Cloud Storage buckets in the project.

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-static-site-buckets"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`projectId`	No	Project ID (optional)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.5.0Sep 6, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

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 only says 'List,' which implies a read-only operation, but it does not state what is returned, whether projectId falls back to a default project, or whether only static-site buckets are included. These are meaningful undocumented behaviors.

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 sentence with no filler. The verb, object, and scope are front-loaded, and every word contributes to the meaning.

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 operation with one optional parameter, this is minimally adequate. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it leaves unclear what kind of result is returned and how the optional projectId affects behavior, which are noticeable gaps.

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%, and the lone parameter projectId is already described as 'Project ID (optional)'. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, so the schema carries the burden, making the baseline score of 3 appropriate.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description states a clear action, resource, and scope: 'List Cloud Storage buckets in the project.' However, it does not distinguish this from siblings, and it omits the 'static-site' qualifier present in the tool name, creating ambiguity about whether it lists all buckets or only static-site-related 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention using it before create/delete/deploy static-site operations, nor does it clarify when the optional projectId should or should not be provided. Sibling tools like create-static-site-bucket and delete-static-site-bucket exist, but no when/when-not guidance is given.

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

Deploy Server