google-cloud-console-mcp

List Cloud Storage buckets

gcs_list_buckets

Lists all Cloud Storage buckets in a specified Google Cloud project or default project from GOOGLE_CLOUD_PROJECT, helping you inspect available storage resources.

Instructions

Lists all Cloud Storage buckets in a 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": "gcs_list_buckets"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`pageToken`	No
`projectId`	No	GCP project id; defaults to GOOGLE_CLOUD_PROJECT env var

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 12, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

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, and it discloses almost nothing: no indication that results are paginated via pageToken, no permission/authentication requirements, no note on result ordering or default limits. A read-only listing tool is relatively low-risk, but the pagination behavior is a real operational gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single short sentence with the core action front-loaded and no filler. It is not over-long, though it is arguably under-specified rather than concisely complete.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented pageToken, the agent lacks the information needed to know how to iterate results or what a pageToken response looks like. For a paginated list operation, the description should at minimum mention paging and the return shape.

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 50%: projectId is documented in the schema (including the GOOGLE_CLOUD_PROJECT fallback), but pageToken has no description anywhere. The description's 'in a project' loosely restates projectId but adds nothing about the paging parameter or the default-project behavior.

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?

States a specific verb (lists) and resource (Cloud Storage buckets) with scope (in a project), which is enough to distinguish it from mutation siblings like gcs_create_bucket and gcs_delete_bucket. It does not explicitly differentiate from gcs_get_bucket or gcs_list_objects, but the verb+resource combination is unambiguous.

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 when-to-use guidance, no preconditions (project must exist, caller must have storage.buckets.list permission), and no mention of alternatives such as gcs_get_bucket for a single bucket. The agent must infer all of this.

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

Deploy Server