BunkerWeb MCP

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

list_instances

Read-only

Retrieve all registered BunkerWeb instances with hostname, name, port, method, status, and last-seen data from cached registration records; use ping_instances for live reachability checks.

Instructions

List every registered BunkerWeb instance (hostname, name, port, method, status, last_seen). Cached up to 60 s. This is registration data, not a live check: use ping_instances for reachability, get_instance for one host.

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_instances"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 20, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds the genuinely useful disclosure that results are cached up to 60s and reflect registration data rather than live state. That staleness caveat is the key behavioral fact an agent needs and is not derivable from the schema. It stops just short of the top mark only because it says nothing about result ordering or expected volume.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and return fields, followed by the cache caveat and then the alternative-tool routing. Every clause earns its place and nothing is repeated from structured fields.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description enumerates the returned fields, which compensates. For a zero-parameter, read-only listing tool, nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline applies. The description spends no words re-stating a schema and instead invests them in scope and sibling routing.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List every registered BunkerWeb instance") and enumerates the fields returned (hostname, name, port, method, status, last_seen). It explicitly distinguishes itself from ping_instances and get_instance, so an agent can route correctly without opening any schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Names two alternatives with the exact condition that selects each: ping_instances for reachability and get_instance for a single host. It also states when this tool is the wrong choice ("not a live check").

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