Skip to main content
Glama
pickstar-2002

MinIO Storage MCP

get_bucket_policy

Retrieve access policies for MinIO storage buckets to manage permissions and security settings.

Instructions

获取存储桶策略

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bucketNameYes存储桶名称

Implementation Reference

  • The handler logic for the 'get_bucket_policy' tool. Validates bucketName input with Zod, calls MinIOStorageClient.getBucketPolicy, and formats the policy as a text response in the MCP content.
    case 'get_bucket_policy': {
      const { bucketName } = z.object({
        bucketName: z.string()
      }).parse(args);
      
      const policy = await this.minioClient.getBucketPolicy(bucketName);
      return {
        content: [
          {
            type: 'text',
            text: `存储桶 ${bucketName} 的策略:\n${policy}`
          }
        ]
      };
    }
  • src/index.ts:290-300 (registration)
    Registration of the 'get_bucket_policy' tool in the ListTools response, including name, description, and input schema definition.
    {
      name: 'get_bucket_policy',
      description: '获取存储桶策略',
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {
          bucketName: { type: 'string', description: '存储桶名称' }
        },
        required: ['bucketName']
      }
    },
  • Helper method in MinIOStorageClient class that ensures connection and delegates to the underlying MinIO client's getBucketPolicy method.
    async getBucketPolicy(bucketName: string): Promise<string> {
      this.ensureConnected();
      return await this.client!.getBucketPolicy(bucketName);
    }
Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but provides none. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only operation (though implied by 'get'), what permissions are required, whether it returns an error for non-existent buckets, what format the policy is returned in, or any rate limits. For a tool that presumably interacts with storage infrastructure, this lack of behavioral context 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 extremely concise at just four Chinese characters. While this represents under-specification rather than ideal conciseness, according to the scoring framework, 'conciseness' evaluates whether the description is appropriately sized and front-loaded. This single phrase contains no wasted words and immediately states the core function, earning full marks on this dimension despite its overall inadequacy.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Given the complexity of storage bucket operations and the complete absence of annotations and output schema, the description is woefully incomplete. It doesn't explain what a bucket policy is, what format it returns, error conditions, authentication requirements, or how this tool relates to the many sibling tools. For a tool that presumably returns security/access configuration data, this minimal description leaves the agent with insufficient context to use it 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?

The schema description coverage is 100% with a single parameter 'bucketName' documented as '存储桶名称' (bucket name). The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no parameter details in the description, which applies here.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description '获取存储桶策略' (Get bucket policy) is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'get_bucket_policy' in Chinese. While it does specify the verb ('get') and resource ('bucket policy'), it doesn't provide any additional context about what a bucket policy is or what this operation specifically retrieves. It fails to distinguish this tool from its sibling 'set_bucket_policy' beyond the obvious verb difference.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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

The description provides absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (like needing an existing bucket), no comparison to sibling tools like 'bucket_exists' or 'get_object_info', and no indication of what scenarios would call for retrieving a bucket policy versus other bucket operations. The agent receives zero contextual guidance.

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