Retrieve a registered BunkerWeb instance by hostname to inspect its ports, server name, status, and last-seen time; returns 404 when the hostname is unknown.
Fetch one registered instance by hostname (name, ports, server_name, method, status, last_seen); 404 if unknown. Cached up to 60 s. Use list_instances to find hostnames, ping_instances to test reachability.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hostname | Yes | Instance hostname |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, it discloses the error case (404 if unknown), a caching window (up to 60 s), which implies staleness, and the shape of the returned record. These are real behavioral traits an agent needs and cannot infer from the annotations or schema.
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?
Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then return fields, error behavior, cache note, and sibling routing. No filler and nothing buried.
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?
For a one-parameter read with no output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: input source, return fields, failure behavior, and staleness caveat. Nothing material is missing.
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 coverage is 100% and the single hostname parameter is already documented. The description adds only the hint that hostnames come from list_instances, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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+resource ("Fetch one registered instance by hostname") and enumerates the fields returned, so an agent can tell it apart from list_instances or ping_instances without opening schemas.
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?
Explicitly names two alternatives with their selecting conditions: list_instances to find hostnames, ping_instances to test reachability. That is exactly the when-to-use-one-vs-the-other guidance the sibling set demands.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.