Retrieve a bucket's versioning state—Enabled, Suspended, or Off—to verify object version history and data protection settings before lifecycle or write operations.
[READ] The bucket's versioning state: Enabled / Suspended / Off.
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 readOnlyHint annotation already establishes safety, and the description is consistent with it via the '[READ]' tag. Beyond that, it discloses the domain of return values (Enabled / Suspended / Off), which is genuinely useful information not present in structured fields since there is no output schema.
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?
Two tight components: a one-line purpose with the return-value domain front-loaded, followed by a short Args block. Every sentence earns its place and nothing is padded.
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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the definition covers what it reads, the possible results, and both parameters including the default-omission behavior. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly 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% — the JSON schema carries no descriptions at all — so the description must carry the full burden, and it does: bucket_name is tied to its source tool (bucket_ls) and target is explained as a MinIO target name from config, with the omission behavior for the default explicitly stated.
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 states a specific verb+resource — reading a bucket's versioning state — and enumerates the possible states (Enabled/Suspended/Off), so the agent knows exactly what question this tool answers. It does not explicitly name the mutating counterpart set_versioning to differentiate, so it falls just short of a 5.
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]' tag and the phrase 'The bucket's versioning state' imply this is the non-mutating way to inspect versioning, which implicitly distinguishes it from set_versioning in the sibling list. However, no explicit when-to-use, prerequisite, or alternative is given (e.g., 'use before calling set_versioning' or 'not to be confused with bucket_info').
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.