List object versions and delete markers in an S3 bucket, with pagination using version markers and continuation tokens.
List versions and delete markers with both pagination markers.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bucket | Yes | ||
| prefix | No | ||
| max_keys | No | ||
| version_marker | 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 burden. It reveals that delete markers are surfaced (a useful behavioral trait), but says nothing about permissions, ordering, how to iterate pages, or cost/rate characteristics of a versioned listing.
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?
A single tight, front-loaded sentence with no waste. It is slightly cryptic ('both pagination markers' rather than naming the markers), but efficient overall.
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?
For a 5-parameter listing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It does not compensate for the absent parameter documentation or explain the pagination loop an agent must run.
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% across 5 parameters. The phrase 'both pagination markers' obliquely gestures at version_marker and continuation_token, but bucket, prefix, and max_keys are undocumented, and the description gives no syntax or semantics for any of them.
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?
States a specific verb (List) and resource (object versions), and adds the notable scope detail that delete markers are included. This implicitly distinguishes it from s3_list_objects, which lists only current objects, though the sibling is never named.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives like s3_list_objects or s3_list_multipart_uploads. The agent must infer that this is the versioned-listing variant purely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.