Bunny.net MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'create' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: no information on permissions required, whether creation is idempotent, rate limits, what happens on failure, or what the response contains. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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, focused sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the essential action and resource, making it immediately scannable. Every word earns its place, and there's no redundant information or unnecessary elaboration.

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 this is a creation tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address what happens after creation, error conditions, or operational implications. While the schema covers parameter basics, the description fails to provide the contextual understanding needed for effective tool use in a complex CDN management environment with many sibling tools.

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 all 6 parameters with basic descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain relationships between parameters (e.g., that storageZoneId is optional, or how geo zones interact), format requirements, or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline 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 clearly states the action ('create') and resource ('new CDN pull zone'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like cdn_update_pullzone or cdn_delete_pullzone by specifying creation rather than modification or deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other creation tools like dns_create_zone or stream_create_video beyond the resource type.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an origin server), compare to cdn_update_pullzone for modifications, or explain when a pull zone is needed versus other CDN configurations. With multiple sibling tools available, this lack of contextual guidance is a significant gap.

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