Skip to main content
Glama
jneless
by jneless

tos_delete_object

Delete objects from Volcengine TOS storage by specifying bucket name and object key to manage storage resources efficiently.

Instructions

删除 TOS 对象

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bucket_nameYes存储桶名称
object_keyYes对象键名

Implementation Reference

  • The main handler function that executes the deletion of the TOS object by extracting bucket_name and object_key from arguments and calling tos_client.delete_object.
    async def delete_object(args: Dict[str, Any]) -> List[TextContent]:
        """删除对象"""
        bucket_name = args["bucket_name"]
        object_key = args["object_key"]
        
        try:
            tos_client.delete_object(bucket_name, object_key)
            return [TextContent(type="text", text=f"成功删除对象: {object_key}")]
        except Exception as e:
            return [TextContent(type="text", text=f"删除对象失败: {str(e)}")]
  • The tool schema definition including input validation for bucket_name and object_key, registered in list_tools().
    Tool(
        name="tos_delete_object",
        description="删除 TOS 对象",
        inputSchema={
            "type": "object",
            "properties": {
                "bucket_name": {
                    "type": "string",
                    "description": "存储桶名称"
                },
                "object_key": {
                    "type": "string",
                    "description": "对象键名"
                }
            },
            "required": ["bucket_name", "object_key"]
        }
    ),
  • The dispatch logic in call_tool() that routes 'tos_delete_object' calls to the delete_object handler.
    elif name == "tos_delete_object":
        return await delete_object(arguments)
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. While '删除' (delete) implies a destructive mutation, the description fails to specify critical behaviors: whether deletion is permanent, if it requires specific permissions, what happens on success/failure, or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that performs irreversible actions.

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 extremely concise—a single phrase—with zero wasted words. It is front-loaded and directly states the action, making it efficient for quick understanding. This brevity is appropriate given the tool's straightforward purpose, though it sacrifices detail for conciseness.

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 the tool's complexity (a destructive operation with 2 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the deletion process, error handling, or return values, leaving users unsure of outcomes. For a mutation tool in a storage context, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear Chinese descriptions for 'bucket_name' and 'object_key'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, such as format examples or constraints. However, since the schema is well-documented, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description '删除 TOS 对象' (Delete TOS object) states a clear verb ('delete') and resource ('TOS object'), which is better than a tautology. However, it lacks specificity about what a 'TOS object' is (e.g., a file in a cloud storage bucket) and does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'tos_delete_bucket' or 'tos_put_object', leaving ambiguity about the exact scope of deletion.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., the object must exist), exclusions (e.g., cannot delete non-empty buckets), or related tools like 'tos_delete_bucket' for bucket-level operations. Without such context, users might misuse it or struggle to choose between sibling tools.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/jneless/tos-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server