Identify S3 buckets with public access or missing guardrails, enabling you to fix security gaps before data leaks occur.
Find S3 buckets that are publicly accessible or missing guardrails.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| region | Yes | AWS region to scan, e.g. eu-west-1 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It only states 'find' and does not disclose whether the tool performs API calls, requires specific AWS permissions, or what 'missing guardrails' includes (e.g., encryption, logging, versioning). It also does not clarify if any side effects or costs occur, leaving significant behavioral gaps.
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, compact sentence that states the purpose without filler. The core functionality is front-loaded and immediately understandable, making it efficient for an agent to parse.
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?
The tool has only one parameter and no output schema, so the description is the sole source of context. It explains what the tool scans for but leaves 'missing guardrails' undefined and does not describe the expected result format or prerequisites. Adequate for a simple scan tool, but not fully complete.
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 100%—the region parameter is already well described in the schema. The tool description adds no extra parameter-level insights, 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.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the resource (S3 buckets), the action (find), and the specific target condition (publicly accessible or missing guardrails). It distinguishes itself from sibling scan tools by explicitly naming S3, so an agent can select it without opening the schema.
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 implies using this tool when checking S3 public access or guardrails, but it provides no explicit trigger conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives. Sibling scans are clearly different resources, so an agent can infer the appropriate use case, yet no direct guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.