Bunny.net MCP Server

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a safe read operation (implied by 'List' but not explicit), pagination behavior (though parameters suggest it), rate limits, or authentication needs, leaving significant gaps.

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 with zero wasted words, clearly front-loading the core purpose. It's appropriately sized for a simple list operation, 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 (a list operation with no output schema and no annotations), the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines, which are needed for effective agent use despite the straightforward nature.

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 fully documents the three parameters (page, perPage, search). The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying a listing action, which aligns with the schema but doesn't enhance parameter understanding, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 ('List') and resource ('all CDN pull zones'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'cdn_get_pullzone' (which likely retrieves a specific pull zone) or 'dns_list_zones' (which lists DNS zones instead), missing explicit sibling distinction.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to prefer this over 'cdn_get_pullzone' for a single zone or 'dns_list_zones' for different resource types, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions.

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