Retrieve the lifecycle rules set on a MinIO bucket and return null if none exist. Specify the bucket name and optional MinIO target to audit expiration, transition, or retention policies.
[READ] The bucket's lifecycle rules (null when no lifecycle is set).
Args: bucket_name: Bucket name (from bucket_ls). target: MinIO target name from config; omit for the default.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| target | No | ||
| bucket_name | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations: it clarifies that null is returned when no lifecycle is set, which is important for result interpretation. It does not disclose error behavior, permissions, or output format, keeping it from a 5.
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 front-loaded with the purpose and null-return note, followed by a concise Args block. It is appropriately sized with no wasted sentences, though the bracketed marker and parenthetical slightly add overhead without much 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 two-parameter read tool with a single annotation and no output schema, the description covers purpose, return semantics, and parameter meaning. The main gap is the lack of guidance on alternatives or broader behavior, but nothing critical to correct invocation is missing.
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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. The Args block explains that bucket_name comes from bucket_ls and that target is the MinIO target name from config, to be omitted for default. This meaningfully compensates for the empty schema descriptions and clarifies the target's purpose and default behavior.
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+resource: retrieves the bucket's lifecycle rules. The clarification '(null when no lifecycle is set)' makes the return semantics unambiguous and distinguishes it from siblings like set_lifecycle, delete_lifecycle, and bucket_policy_get.
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 '[READ]' marker and 'from bucket_ls' hint imply a read-only inspection action, giving some context. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this vs lifecycle_gap_analysis, bucket_info, or other read tools, leaving the agent to infer.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.