Retrieve unfinished multipart uploads in an S3 bucket to find and clean up orphaned parts, using prefix filters, key limits and continuation markers for pagination.
List unfinished uploads; pass both returned markers.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bucket | Yes | ||
| prefix | No | ||
| max_keys | No | ||
| upload_id | No | ||
| continuation_token | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It hints that results are paginated via markers, but does not state read-only safety, required permissions, whether results are scoped by bucket/prefix, or what the response contains.
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?
Two terse, front-loaded clauses with no padding. It is appropriately sized for a short definition, though the second clause is too compressed to be useful.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage across 5 parameters, the description is far too thin for the complexity. An agent cannot determine filtering behavior, permission needs, or return shape from this text.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0% for 5 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. The cryptic phrase "both returned markers" ambiguously gestures at continuation_token/upload_id while bucket, prefix, and max_keys remain completely unexplained.
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 states a clear verb+resource ("List unfinished uploads"), which is better than a tautology. However, it does not differentiate from near-duplicate siblings such as s3_list_parts and s3_unfinished_uploads, leaving the agent to guess which is appropriate.
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 only guidance is "pass both returned markers," which is a pagination instruction rather than a when-to-use rule. There is no indication of when this is preferable to s3_list_parts or s3_unfinished_uploads, nor any prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.