Reloads BunkerWeb configuration across every instance, testing changes first by default and applying them immediately when valid.
Reload configuration on every instance, testing it first by default. Use reload_instance for one host. Acts on the instances immediately.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| test | No | Test the configuration first and reload only if the test passes; this still reloads, it is not a dry run. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Input schema / properties / test / descriptionAdded value: +"Test the configuration first and reload only if the test passes; this still reloads, it is not a dry run."v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known. 'Acts on the instances immediately' adds useful context that there is no confirmation or preview step, but the description says nothing about rolling vs parallel execution, partial failure handling, or whether a failed reload leaves instances in a bad state — material for a destructive bulk operation.
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 with zero filler; scope, alternative, and immediacy are all front-loaded. Nothing is repeated or padded.
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 tool with no output schema and annotations covering destructiveness, the description covers scope, targeting, default behavior, and immediacy. The only gap is what happens on partial failure across many instances, which is secondary.
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 description coverage is 100% and the single test parameter is already fully documented, including the important 'not a dry run' caveat. The description only echoes the default, so baseline 3 applies.
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 (reload) and resource scope (every instance) and immediately distinguishes itself from the single-host sibling reload_instance. An agent can tell the two apart 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?
'Use reload_instance for one host' names the alternative and the condition that selects it, giving a clear fan-out vs single-target rule. The default test-first behavior is also surfaced so the agent knows what happens without parameters.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.