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 but offers minimal behavioral insight. 'Update' implies a mutation operation, but it doesn't disclose whether this requires specific permissions, if changes are reversible, what happens to unspecified settings (partial vs. full updates), rate limits, or error conditions. It lacks context about what 'pull zone settings' encompass beyond the parameter hints.

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 waste. It's appropriately sized for a tool with good schema coverage, though its brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions. No fluff or redundant information is present.

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 complexity (mutation with 6 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'pull zone' is, what settings are updatable beyond the parameter list, or what the tool returns. For a mutation tool in a CDN context, more context is needed to guide safe and effective use.

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 meaning about parameters—it doesn't explain relationships between fields (e.g., that 'allowedReferrers' and 'blockedReferrers' are mutually exclusive lists) or provide examples. The baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Update pull zone settings' clearly states the action (update) and resource (pull zone settings), but it's vague about what specific settings can be updated. It doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'cdn_update_pullzone' (which doesn't exist in the list - likely a typo in the name) or from other update tools like 'dns_update_record' or 'dns_update_zone' 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 existing pull zone ID), when not to use it, or how it differs from related tools like 'cdn_get_pullzone' for viewing settings or 'cdn_create_pullzone' for initial setup. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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