List S3 buckets using configured credentials for AWS, Hetzner, or OVH; optionally target a specific provider account.
List S3 buckets accessible with the configured credentials for the given provider (aws | hetzner | ovh).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account | No | Account label of the provider whose object storage to use; omit for that provider's default account. | |
| provider | Yes | Storage provider. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.28.0Input schema / properties / accountAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Account label of the provider whose object storage to use; omit for that provider's default account.",
+ "type": "string"
+}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 usefully discloses that results are filtered by the configured credentials and that the call is a non-mutating listing, but says nothing about pagination, result caps, or behavior when credentials lack access.
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 front-loaded sentence with the verb, resource, and scope before the provider enumeration. No filler, nothing redundant.
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 two-parameter read-only listing with no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient; provider and credential scoping are covered. The only omission is any hint about the account parameter's effect on results.
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%, so both parameters are already documented. The description's parenthetical provider values merely restate the enum, and the 'account' parameter is not mentioned at all, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 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?
States a specific verb (list) and resource (S3 buckets) plus a scoping qualifier ('accessible with the configured credentials') and the multi-provider dimension. It implicitly separates itself from s3_list_objects (buckets vs. objects), but never names a sibling or explicitly draws that boundary.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the discovery step before s3_list_objects or s3_download_object, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use, prerequisites, or alternatives. Adequate but with a clear gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.