List Cloudflare R2 storage buckets for a specific account to manage object storage resources directly from your development environment.
List R2 buckets
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": "cf_r2_buckets"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| accountId | No | Account ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does 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. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, returns paginated results, includes metadata, or has rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in describing how it behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at three words, front-loading the key information ('List R2 buckets') with zero wasted text. It efficiently communicates the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks context on usage, behavioral traits, or output format, which are crucial for an agent to invoke it correctly. While concise, it doesn't provide enough information to compensate for the missing structured data.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'accountId' parameter documented as 'Account ID'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as explaining where to find the account ID or if it's optional. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List') and resource ('R2 buckets'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'cf_kv_namespaces' or 'cf_workers_list' which also list resources, missing an opportunity to clarify this is specifically for R2 storage buckets versus other Cloudflare resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an account ID), exclusions, or how it compares to sibling tools like 'cf_kv_namespaces' for listing other resource types. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.