Lift IP bans globally or for a specific BunkerWeb service by matching the scope shown in list_bans; remove each ban immediately and retry blocked access.
Lift bans for IPs on every instance, globally or per service; match the scope list_bans shows. An IP also blocked by CrowdSec may be refused (409). Use list_bans first to find them. Acts on the instances immediately.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bans | Yes | List of unban requests |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond annotations: the action affects instances immediately, scope must match list_bans, and CrowdSec can cause a 409 refusal. It does not explain partial-failure behavior across multiple bans or instances.
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?
The description is short and front-loaded with the action and scope, then adds only relevant caveats. Every sentence carries operational value with no redundant or filler wording.
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 destructive bulk unban operation with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: scope, prerequisite discovery via list_bans, immediate effect, and a specific failure mode. It could be stronger by noting whether multiple bans are processed atomically or whether partial failures are possible.
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%, so the schema already documents the ip and service parameters fully, including the global-ban default. The description reinforces the global/per-service distinction and 'match the scope list_bans shows', but adds little syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description uses a specific verb and resource ('Lift bans for IPs') and immediately clarifies the scope ('on every instance, globally or per service'), which distinguishes this operation from ban_ips and list_bans without requiring the 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?
It gives clear workflow guidance by telling the agent to use list_bans first and to match the scope shown there. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name ban_ips as the inverse alternative, so it falls short of fully explicit when/when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.