regenerateObjectStorageCredentialsRegenerates secret key of specified user for the S3 compatible object storages. - Regenerates secret key of specified user for the a specific S3 compatible object storages.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| userId | Yes | ||
| x-trace-id | No | ||
| credentialId | Yes | ||
| x-request-id | Yes | ||
| objectStorageId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / x-hapi-auth-stateRemoved value: -{
- "type": "string"
-}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The destructiveHint annotation signals that this operation is destructive, but the description adds no behavioral context such as invalidating the existing secret key, potential impact on integrations, or required permissions. It fails to disclose consequences beyond what the annotation already implies.
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 short but poorly structured, containing two sentences where the second is a typo-laden restatement of the first ('the a specific'). It is repetitive and lacks a helpful structure, failing to earn its place.
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 destructive operation with five parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is severely underspecified. It provides no context about expected inputs, return values, or side effects, making it inadequate for an agent to invoke correctly.
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?
The schema has 0% parameter description coverage, and the description does not compensate. It vaguely references a 'specified user' and 'specific S3 object storages' but provides no meaning or format for required parameters like x-request-id, credentialId, or objectStorageId. This is a significant gap.
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 action (regenerate secret key) and resource (S3-compatible object storage for a user), but it is essentially a verbatim restatement of the title and does not distinguish this tool from siblings like generateClientSecret or getObjectStorageCredentials. The purpose is clear but no new information is added.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool, what prerequisites exist, or which alternative tools should be considered. The description only restates the action and does not mention scenarios, exclusions, or related commands.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Many tools have clearly distinct CRUD roles per resource, but there are several confusing overlaps: start/stop/restart/shutdown/rescue are similar lifecycle actions, and there are duplicate audit tools like retrieveImageAuditsList and retrieveImageAuditsList1 (one even mislabeled as DNS Zones audit). Additionally, retrieveTagAuditsList appears to duplicate retrieveAssignmentsAuditsList, and updateDnsZoneRecord incorrectly says 'Create resource record'. These overlaps and mislabeled descriptions make it hard to pick the right tool.
The naming is a mix of camelCase verb_noun patterns, but inconsistent. Some tools use 'retrieveXList' while others use 'listX', some use 'Cancel' with a capital letter, and 'tool_search' uses snake_case. Numeric suffixes like 'retrieveImageAuditsList1' and verbs like 'patchInstance' instead of 'updateInstance' further break consistency.
With 124 tools, this is an extremely large tool surface for an MCP server. Even for a broad cloud provider API, this overwhelms an agent's context and selection capabilities. The number far exceeds reasonable scoping and creates unnecessary selection overhead.
The tool set covers a wide range of resources thoroughly: instances, snapshots, images, private networks, object storage, DNS, domains, tags, roles, users, secrets, and audits. Most resources have create/retrieve/update/delete lifecycle operations, and there are extensive audit history tools. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no explicit instance deletion besides cancel, no separate firewall management beyond upgradeInstance), but overall the surface is quite complete for its domain.