Skip to main content
Glama
pickstar-2002

MinIO Storage MCP

bucket_exists

Check if a MinIO storage bucket exists by verifying its name. Use this tool to validate bucket availability before performing storage operations.

Instructions

检查存储桶是否存在

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bucketNameYes存储桶名称

Implementation Reference

  • MCP tool handler for 'bucket_exists': validates input using Zod, calls MinIOStorageClient.bucketExists(), and returns a text response indicating whether the bucket exists.
    case 'bucket_exists': {
      const { bucketName } = z.object({
        bucketName: z.string()
      }).parse(args);
      
      const exists = await this.minioClient.bucketExists(bucketName);
      return {
        content: [
          {
            type: 'text',
            text: `存储桶 ${bucketName} ${exists ? '存在' : '不存在'}`
          }
        ]
      };
    }
  • src/index.ts:111-121 (registration)
    Registration of the 'bucket_exists' tool in the ListTools response, including name, description, and JSON input schema.
    {
      name: 'bucket_exists',
      description: '检查存储桶是否存在',
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {
          bucketName: { type: 'string', description: '存储桶名称' }
        },
        required: ['bucketName']
      }
    },
  • Implementation of bucketExists method in MinIOStorageClient class, which ensures connection and delegates to MinIO client's bucketExists method.
    async bucketExists(bucketName: string): Promise<boolean> {
      this.ensureConnected();
      return await this.client!.bucketExists(bucketName);
    }
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. It states the tool checks existence but doesn't describe what 'exists' means (e.g., permissions, accessibility), the return format (e.g., boolean, error on not found), or any side effects (e.g., rate limits, authentication needs). For a read operation with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, concise sentence ('检查存储桶是否存在') that directly states the tool's purpose with zero waste. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool, earning its place without unnecessary elaboration.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return value (e.g., boolean, error message), behavioral nuances like error handling, or how it differs from similar tools. For a tool with no output schema and minimal context, more detail is needed to be fully helpful.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'bucketName' documented as '存储桶名称' (bucket name). The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format constraints or examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the schema already provides adequate parameter semantics without extra value from the description.

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 '检查存储桶是否存在' clearly states the tool's purpose as checking if a storage bucket exists, using a specific verb ('检查' - check) and resource ('存储桶' - storage bucket). It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_bucket' (creates) and 'list_buckets' (lists all), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from tools like 'get_object_info' which might also check existence indirectly. The purpose is unambiguous but could be more specific about scope.

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. With siblings like 'list_buckets' (lists all buckets) and 'get_object_info' (checks object existence), there's no indication of when this tool is preferred—e.g., for quick existence checks without listing all buckets or before operations like 'delete_bucket'. The lack of context leaves usage unclear.

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/pickstar-2002/minio-storage-mcp'

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