Lists installed BunkerWeb plugins by type; filter to ui to find plugin IDs accepted for uninstallation when writes are enabled.
List installed plugins, filtered by type (all, external, ui, pro). type=ui lists the IDs accepted by uninstall_plugin when writes are enabled. Use list_jobs for jobs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | Plugin type filter: all, external, ui or pro | all |
| with_data | No | Include each plugin's archive data |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Does 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 real context beyond that: the ui filter maps to uninstall targets and write operations are gated behind an "enabled" state. It says nothing about the cost or payload size of with_data, which is the one behavioral trait that could change an agent's call.
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, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the filter semantics, then the sibling disambiguation. Every clause carries information; nothing is repeated from the schema verbatim without added meaning.
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 two-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description covers purpose, filter meaning, and cross-tool routing. The only real gap is the with_data parameter's implications, which is minor for this complexity level.
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?
With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the type enum and adds the valuable detail that type=ui returns IDs consumable by uninstall_plugin, but it never mentions the with_data parameter or what "archive data" implies.
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 installed plugins") plus the filtering dimension (all, external, ui, pro). It also explicitly disambiguates from the nearest sibling with "Use list_jobs for jobs," so an agent can pick the right tool without opening either schema.
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?
Gives a concrete routing rule to list_jobs and a downstream workflow hint (type=ui yields IDs accepted by uninstall_plugin). It does not say when the with_data flag is warranted versus when to omit it, so the flag's usage decision is left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.