CloudOps MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

cos_get_bucket_acl

Retrieve the ACL of a Tencent Cloud COS bucket to inspect access permissions and confirm whether the bucket is publicly readable.

Instructions

获取腾讯云 COS 存储桶的访问权限（ACL），包含 ACL 级别与各项授权（读/写/ACP/完全控制）。用于确认桶是否对匿名开放读。

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": "cos_get_bucket_acl"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`bucket`	Yes	存储桶名称，例如 campusbuzz-images-1312192644
`region`	No	存储桶地域，例如 ap-guangzhou（不填则用全局配置 region）

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 23, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It clearly indicates a read operation ('获取') and describes what information is returned, but it does not disclose potential error conditions, permission requirements, or whether the ACL data is always present. Basic behavioral context is present, but depth is limited.

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 with no filler. The core function is stated first, the output contents are listed, and the intended use case is appended. Every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple 2-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description gives enough context: what is returned and why it would be used. It does not describe response formatting, but that is not essential here. A dedicated alternative for public-read checks exists but is not mentioned, slightly reducing completeness.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (bucket and region) with examples and defaults. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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: fetching a Tencent Cloud COS bucket's ACL, including ACL level and grants (read/write/ACP/full control). This is clear and distinct enough from tool names like cos_get_bucket_policy, though it does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides a concrete use case: confirming whether the bucket allows anonymous read access. However, it does not say when not to use this tool or mention dedicated siblings like cos_check_public_read or cos_get_bucket_policy, leaving the agent to infer routing correctly.

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