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. While 'Remove' implies a destructive operation, the description doesn't specify whether this requires special permissions, what happens if the domain isn't in the list, or any rate limits/constraints. It provides minimal behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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 that efficiently conveys the core functionality without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with two straightforward parameters and no complex behavioral nuances to explain.

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 operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides only the basic action. It doesn't explain what happens after removal, potential side effects, or error conditions. While concise, it leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's full behavior and implications.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional semantic information about the parameters beyond what's in the schema descriptions ('Pull zone ID' and 'Hostname to remove'). This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 ('Remove') and the target ('domain from the pull zone's allowed referrer list'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'cdn_remove_blocked_referer' beyond the 'allowed' vs 'blocked' distinction in the tool names.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'cdn_add_allowed_referer' or 'cdn_remove_blocked_referer'. The description simply states what the tool does without context about appropriate use cases or prerequisites.

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