Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
BunkerWeb MCP

BunkerWeb MCP

Official
by bunkerity
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

list_bans

Read-only

Lists active IP bans grouped by instance, including CrowdSec entries, so you can check if an IP is banned and get the exact IP and service required for unbanning.

Instructions

List active bans as each instance reports them (ip, scope, service, kind, incl. CrowdSec entries), grouped per instance. Cached up to 30 s. Use it to check whether an IP is banned, or for the exact ip and service that unban_ips when writes are enabled needs.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_bans"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond readOnlyHint, it discloses that results are grouped per instance, include entries from each instance and CrowdSec, and may be cached up to 30 seconds. This is useful behavioral context, though it does not cover failure behavior for unreachable instances.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and front-loads the core purpose before the caching note and usage guidance. The final sentence is slightly awkward in phrasing but still earns its place by linking to unban_ips.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a no-parameter read-only tool without an output schema, the description supplies enough context: what is listed, how results are grouped, what fields are included, caching behavior, and the main use case.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning for the description to add. The baseline score applies because schema coverage is complete and no parameter guidance is needed.

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

Purpose5/5

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

It states a specific verb and resource: list active bans as each instance reports them. It also names the included fields, grouping per instance, and CrowdSec coverage, so an agent can identify the tool without opening siblings.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It clearly says to use the tool to check whether an IP is banned or to get the exact ip and service needed by unban_ips when writes are enabled. It lacks explicit when-not guidance, but the alternative workflow is clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools