retrieveObjectStorageListList all your object storages - List and filter all object storages in your account
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| size | No | ||
| region | No | ||
| orderBy | No | ||
| s3TenantId | No | ||
| x-trace-id | No | ||
| displayName | No | ||
| x-request-id | Yes | ||
| dataCenterName | No |
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 annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds only that it supports filtering, which is more a capability than a behavioral trait. It does not disclose pagination behavior, parameter requirements, or any other operational details.
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 redundant: 'List all your object storages' is nearly identical to 'List and filter all object storages in your account'. The first clause restates the title without adding value.
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?
Despite having 9 parameters and no output schema, the description only states the basic purpose. It does not mention pagination, filtering parameters, or any operational notes. Annotations cover safety, but the description leaves the agent without guidance on how to invoke the tool effectively.
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 9 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description only mentions 'filter' generically without explaining which parameters (page, size, region, orderBy, etc.) control filtering or pagination. It fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.
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 and specifically states the tool lists all object storages in the account. It uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('object storages'), and the plural 'all' distinguishes it from the singular retrieveObjectStorage sibling. The phrasing is unambiguous.
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 the tool is for listing/filtering object storages, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like retrieveObjectStorage (singular) or retrieveObjectStoragesStats. No exclusion criteria or alternative tool references are provided.
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.