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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'Get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't clarify permissions required, rate limits, error responses, or what happens if the ID is invalid. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get pull zone details by ID') with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool, 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's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally complete. It states what the tool does but lacks context on behavior, usage, or output format. For a retrieval tool, this is adequate but leaves clear gaps, especially without annotations to fill in behavioral details.

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%, with the parameter 'pullZoneId' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying the ID is used to fetch details. Since the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to.

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 ('Get') and resource ('pull zone details by ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'cdn_list_pullzones' (which lists multiple zones) and 'cdn_create_pullzone' (which creates rather than retrieves). However, it doesn't specify what 'details' include, keeping it from being fully specific.

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 a valid pull zone ID), compare it to 'cdn_list_pullzones' for broader queries, or specify error conditions. Usage is implied by the name but not explicitly stated.

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