Retrieves all registered BunkerWeb instances and their statuses from cached data up to 60 seconds old; use for inventory, not live reachability checks.
List every registered BunkerWeb instance with its status. Results may be cached up to 60 s. Use instance_get for one host, instances_ping_all for live reachability.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered by structured data. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context with the 'cached up to 60 s' staleness window, which affects whether the agent can trust status freshness. It doesn't say whether auth is required or whether the list is paginated, so it is above baseline but not rich.
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?
Three short sentences, zero waste, with the core action front-loaded and the caveat and routing following in priority order.
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, yet the description discloses the key returned field (status) and the freshness caveat, which is sufficient for a zero-param list tool. Only the auth/permission expectation is left implicit.
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?
Zero parameters, so the baseline applies. The description still clarifies scope by saying 'every' instance, signaling there is no filtering or pagination knob to reach for.
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 ('List every registered BunkerWeb instance') plus the payload detail that matters ('with its status'). This is clearly distinguishable from instance_get and instances_ping_all, which it names.
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 routes the agent: 'Use instance_get for one host, instances_ping_all for live reachability.' Both the when-to-use and the alternatives are stated, leaving nothing to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.