google-cloud-console-mcp

Create bucket

gcs_create_bucket

Creates a new Google Cloud Storage bucket with a globally unique name, specifying location, project, storage class, and access settings.

Instructions

Creates a new Cloud Storage bucket. Bucket names are globally unique across all of GCS.

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": {
      "bucket": "<bucket>"
    },
    "name": "gcs_create_bucket"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`bucket`	Yes	Bucket name (without gs:// prefix)
`location`	No	e.g. "US", "EU", "us-central1"
`projectId`	No	GCP project id; defaults to GOOGLE_CLOUD_PROJECT env var
`storageClass`	No
`uniformBucketLevelAccess`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 12, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses only that bucket names are globally unique. It omits whether creation is idempotent, what permissions are required, how defaults for location or storage class are applied, and whether the operation is reversible.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by a critical constraint. There is no filler and every sentence contributes information.

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?

For a 5-parameter create tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not cover permissions, project/location defaults, storage class semantics, or what a successful creation returns, leaving agents without enough context to call it confidently.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 60% and the description adds only the global-uniqueness constraint for the bucket parameter. It offers no semantic detail for location, projectId, storageClass, or uniformBucketLevelAccess, leaving half the parameters under-documented across both schema and description.

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 specific verb and resource ('Creates a new Cloud Storage bucket'), making the action unmistakable. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like gcs_list_buckets, gcs_get_bucket, or gcs_delete_bucket, 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.

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, nor any prerequisites such as required permissions, project context, or implications of creating a globally unique resource. The global-uniqueness note is a constraint, not usage instruction.

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

Deploy Server