Run a read-only check of BunkerWeb connectivity, authentication, version, MULTISITE, and instances, plus optional service ownership and draft state.
Read-only check of the connected BunkerWeb: reachability, authentication, version, MULTISITE, instances, and optionally who owns a service's settings.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| service | No | Optional service ID (its first SERVER_NAME) to also check existence, draft state and setting owners |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.0Input schema / properties / service / descriptionAdded value: +"Optional service ID (its first SERVER_NAME) to also check existence, draft state and setting owners"v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description's 'read-only' claim is consistent with readOnlyHint=true and it enumerates what is inspected, which is useful. It does not disclose cost, latency, permission requirements, or what a failed vs. partially-failed check looks like, so it adds modest value over the annotation.
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?
One front-loaded sentence with a compact enumeration of checks; nothing is wasted, though the trailing 'and optionally who owns a service's settings' is slightly buried for the only parameter-dependent behavior.
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 exists, so the description must imply the return shape, and it only lists topics checked rather than describing the report structure or what happens on partial failures. Adequate but not complete for a diagnostic entry point.
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 the single optional 'service' parameter is fully documented there, so the schema carries the load. The description only hints at the extra behavior ('who owns a service's settings'), adding marginal detail beyond the schema.
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 (read-only check) and resource (connected BunkerWeb) and enumerates the dimensions checked: reachability, authentication, version, MULTISITE, instances, and service ownership. An agent understands the scope immediately, though it never distinguishes itself from siblings like health or ping.
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?
Usage is only implied — the breadth of checks suggests a first-line triage tool, but there is no explicit 'use this when X, use health/ping instead when Y' routing despite several overlapping diagnostic siblings (health, ping, instance_get).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.