Skip to main content
Glama
pickstar-2002

MinIO Storage MCP

delete_bucket

Remove a storage bucket from MinIO object storage to manage storage resources and maintain organization.

Instructions

删除存储桶

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bucketNameYes存储桶名称

Implementation Reference

  • The switch case handler for the 'delete_bucket' tool. It validates the input arguments using Zod, calls the minioClient.deleteBucket method, and returns a success message.
    case 'delete_bucket': {
      const { bucketName } = z.object({
        bucketName: z.string()
      }).parse(args);
      
      await this.minioClient.deleteBucket(bucketName);
      return {
        content: [
          {
            type: 'text',
            text: `成功删除存储桶: ${bucketName}`
          }
        ]
      };
    }
  • The input schema definition for the 'delete_bucket' tool, registered in the ListTools handler. Defines bucketName as required string.
      name: 'delete_bucket',
      description: '删除存储桶',
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {
          bucketName: { type: 'string', description: '存储桶名称' }
        },
        required: ['bucketName']
      }
    },
  • The MinioClient helper method deleteBucket that ensures the client is connected and delegates to the underlying MinIO client's removeBucket method.
    async deleteBucket(bucketName: string): Promise<void> {
      this.ensureConnected();
      await this.client!.removeBucket(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. '删除存储桶' implies a destructive, irreversible mutation, but it doesn't specify critical behaviors: whether deletion requires specific permissions, if the bucket must be empty first, what happens on success/failure, or any rate limits. For a high-risk tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 phrase ('删除存储桶') that directly states the action and resource with zero wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple operation and front-loaded, though its brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions. Every word earns its place.

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 complexity (destructive mutation), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address key contextual aspects: behavioral risks, prerequisites, error handling, or output expectations. For a tool that permanently deletes resources, this minimal description is inadequate.

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 single parameter 'bucketName' documented as '存储桶名称' (storage bucket name). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as format constraints (e.g., naming rules) or examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description '删除存储桶' (delete storage bucket) states the verb and resource, making the basic purpose clear. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from similar destructive operations like delete_bucket_policy, delete_object, or delete_objects, which all involve deletion but target different resources. The purpose is understandable but lacks sibling differentiation.

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., bucket must exist, be empty), exclusions (e.g., cannot delete if policies exist), or comparisons to siblings like delete_bucket_policy or delete_objects. The agent must infer usage from the name alone, which is insufficient for a destructive operation.

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