Bunny.net MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it indicates a mutation operation ('Remove'), it doesn't address important aspects like required permissions, whether this is reversible, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens when removing a non-existent entry. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 communicates the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the essential information and contains no redundant elements.

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 mutation tool with 2 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description provides basic functionality but lacks important context about behavioral characteristics, error handling, and system impact. It's minimally adequate but leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the full implications of using this tool.

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%, providing clear documentation for both parameters. The description doesn't add any additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or edge cases. With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 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 ('Remove') and target resource ('domain from the pull zone's blocked referrer list'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'cdn_remove_allowed_referer' beyond the obvious 'blocked' vs 'allowed' distinction in the name.

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_update_pullzone' for referrer management. 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.