Skip to main content
Glama

minio_bucket_exists

Verify whether a specific bucket exists in MinIO or S3-compatible object storage to confirm availability before performing storage operations.

Instructions

Check if a bucket exists in MinIO

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bucket_nameYesName of the bucket to check

Implementation Reference

  • The actual implementation of bucket_exists method in MinioClient class that checks if a bucket exists using the MinIO client's bucket_exists method and returns a dictionary with bucket name and existence status.
    def bucket_exists(self, bucket_name: str) -> dict:
        """Check if a bucket exists.
    
        Args:
            bucket_name: Name of the bucket to check
    
        Returns:
            Dictionary with exists status
        """
        exists = self._client.bucket_exists(bucket_name)
        return {"bucket": bucket_name, "exists": exists}
  • Tool registration in the TOOLS list that defines the minio_bucket_exists tool with its name, description, and input schema requiring a bucket_name parameter.
    Tool(
        name="minio_bucket_exists",
        description="Check if a bucket exists in MinIO",
        inputSchema={
            "type": "object",
            "properties": {
                "bucket_name": {
                    "type": "string",
                    "description": "Name of the bucket to check",
                },
            },
            "required": ["bucket_name"],
        },
    ),
  • Handler in the call_tool function that routes minio_bucket_exists tool calls to the MinioClient's bucket_exists method, passing the bucket_name argument.
    elif name == "minio_bucket_exists":
        result = client.bucket_exists(arguments["bucket_name"])
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Check if' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what happens on errors (e.g., invalid bucket names), or the return format (e.g., boolean vs. detailed response). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Check if'), making it easy to parse. Every part of the sentence earns its place by conveying essential information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on usage context, behavioral traits, or output expectations. For a simple existence-check tool, this is borderline viable but leaves room for improvement in guiding the agent effectively.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'bucket_name' clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any semantic details beyond what the schema provides (e.g., bucket naming conventions, case-sensitivity). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb ('Check if') and resource ('a bucket exists in MinIO'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'minio_list_buckets' (which lists all buckets) and 'minio_make_bucket' (which creates buckets). However, it doesn't explicitly mention the specific resource being checked (e.g., 'in the configured MinIO instance'), which would make it a perfect 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing bucket name), exclusions (e.g., not for checking object existence), or direct alternatives like 'minio_list_buckets' (which could also infer existence). Without such context, the agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Raphaelren/minio-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server