Read Yandex Cloud S3 bucket configuration including location, versioning, CORS, policy, and Object Lock, then report absent or unsupported settings.
Read location, versioning, CORS, policy and Object Lock; report absent/unsupported configuration.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bucket | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses one behavioral trait: absent or unsupported configuration is reported rather than erroring. It does not state that it is read-only, what permissions are required, or that it likely fans out into several underlying API calls.
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?
One front-loaded sentence with the verb first and no filler. It is appropriately sized, though the trailing clause about absent configs could be seen as slightly compressed.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description should ideally sketch the shape of the multi-domain response; it only notes the absent/unsupported handling. Adequate but leaves the return structure and the bucket parameter unaddressed.
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 coverage is 0% and the single 'bucket' parameter is never mentioned, described, or exemplified in the description. For a tool whose only input is a bucket identifier, the description adds no meaning about format or required identifier.
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?
Clear verb+resource ('Read ... bucket config') and it enumerates the exact configuration domains fetched: location, versioning, CORS, policy, Object Lock. This implicitly separates it from the object-oriented siblings (s3_get_object, s3_head_object, etc.), though it never explicitly names an alternative.
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?
No statement of when to reach for this tool versus the many s3_list_* / s3_get_object variants. The agent must infer that this is the bucket-level inspection call. No prerequisites or exclusion conditions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.