Bunny.net MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action is 'Add,' implying a mutation, but fails to mention permissions required, rate limits, whether the change is immediate or requires propagation, or what happens on success/failure. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond the basic 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?

The description is a single, direct sentence with no wasted words, clearly front-loading the core action and resource. It efficiently communicates the essential purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool performs a mutation (adding to a list) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like error handling, response format, or side effects, which are crucial for an agent to use this tool effectively in a CDN management context.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters ('pullZoneId' and 'hostname'). The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage without extra value.

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 clearly states the action ('Add') and the target resource ('a domain to the pull zone's allowed referrer list'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'cdn_add_blocked_referer' beyond the 'allowed' vs 'blocked' distinction in the tool names, which is why it doesn't reach a score of 5.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'cdn_remove_allowed_referer' or 'cdn_add_blocked_referer', nor does it mention prerequisites or context for adding allowed referrers. It lacks explicit usage instructions, leaving the agent to infer from tool names alone.

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