Returns a new BunkerWeb API token using optional Basic auth credentials so you can call the API without changing the BunkerWeb configuration.
Returns a new BunkerWeb API token; changes nothing in the BunkerWeb configuration.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| payload | No | Optional JSON payload | |
| password | No | Password for Basic auth | |
| username | No | Username for Basic auth |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Input schema / properties / password / descriptionAdded value: +"Password for Basic auth"Input schema / properties / payload / descriptionAdded value: +"Optional JSON payload"Input schema / properties / username / descriptionAdded value: +"Username for Basic auth"v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With readOnlyHint=false the agent might assume a mutation, but the description usefully clarifies that no configuration changes occur; that is real context beyond the annotations. However, it says nothing about credential requirements, token lifetime, or rate limits, and it does not explain why a 'read-like' operation is flagged as non-read-only.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the token-returning behavior leads and the safety note follows. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity leaves obvious questions unaddressed.
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?
No output schema, three parameters, and no annotation detail about token semantics. An agent is not told where the returned token is used, its validity duration, or that credentials are mandatory despite zero required parameters.
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 description coverage is 100% and each of the three parameters (payload, password, username) is documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no extra meaning about how credentials are supplied or what payload does.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: 'Returns a new BunkerWeb API token.' No sibling tool competes for the authentication role, so the purpose is unambiguous, though it never names the credentials required to obtain the token.
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?
Gives no when-to-use context: it does not say the token is a prerequisite for the other API tools, nor when to re-authenticate versus reuse an existing token. The only guidance-adjacent statement is the negative claim about configuration.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.