google-cloud-console-mcp

Upload object

gcs_upload_object

Upload a local file to a Google Cloud Storage bucket at the specified object path. Use it to place files into GCS buckets directly.

Instructions

Uploads a local file to a bucket at the given object path/key.

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>",
      "object": "<object>",
      "filePath": "<filePath>"
    },
    "name": "gcs_upload_object"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`bucket`	Yes	Bucket name (without gs:// prefix)
`object`	Yes	Destination object path/key within the bucket
`filePath`	Yes	Absolute local file path to upload
`contentType`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 12, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and falls short: it does not state whether an existing object at the same key is overwritten, what permissions/scopes are required, whether uploads are resumable, or any size constraints. For a write/mutation operation this is a meaningful 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 efficient sentence with the key noun phrase front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately sized, though slightly terse given the operation's complexity.

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?

This is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, so the description should compensate by covering overwrite semantics, required auth, and error conditions. It covers none of these, leaving the agent to guess about destructive side effects.

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 75%, so the schema already documents bucket, object, and filePath in detail; the description merely restates them. The undocumented contentType parameter is not clarified anywhere (e.g., its default or content-type inference), so no value is added beyond the schema baseline.

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 gives a specific verb + resource pair ("Uploads a local file to a bucket at the given object path/key") and clearly implies the direction of data flow, which contrasts with the sibling gcs_download_object. It does not explicitly name alternatives or scope limits, but the core purpose 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., bucket must exist), and no mention of related operations like gcs_get_object_metadata or gcs_delete_object for post-upload management. Usage is only implied by the verb.

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

Deploy Server