List S3 buckets available to the configured credentials for AWS, Hetzner, or OVH so you can verify access before managing objects.
List S3 buckets accessible with the configured credentials for the given provider (aws | hetzner | ovh).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| provider | Yes | Storage provider. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It correctly indicates it is a read operation listing accessible buckets and specifies supported providers. However, it does not disclose potential error behaviors, permission requirements, or whether results are paginated.
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?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence of 18 words. It front-loads the action and resource, includes provider context, and contains no redundant or extraneous information.
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 simple list operation with one parameter, the description is largely complete. However, it does not mention the expected return format or output structure (e.g., list of bucket names). Without an output schema, a brief hint about what the agent can expect would improve completeness.
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 100% with a single parameter 'provider' having an enum and description. The description restates the enum values and adds context about 'configured credentials', which adds marginal value. Overall, the description does not significantly enhance the semantic understanding beyond the schema.
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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('S3 buckets') and adds context ('accessible with the configured credentials for the given provider'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like s3_list_objects by specifying it lists buckets themselves.
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 when to use it (when needing to list S3 buckets with configured credentials), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternatives. Given the sibling set includes many AWS-specific tools, mention of providers helps, but no exclusions or trade-offs are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.