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. It states the action ('Add') implying a write/mutation, but doesn't disclose permissions needed, rate limits, idempotency, or what happens on success/failure. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that modifies DNS configuration.

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, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently communicates the essential action without unnecessary elaboration.

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 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks critical context like error handling, return values, side effects, or dependencies (e.g., zone must exist). The high schema coverage helps with parameters, but overall completeness is poor for a tool that alters system state.

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 parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional semantic context about parameters, such as explaining relationships (e.g., 'priority' only matters for MX/SRV types) or constraints beyond what's in schema descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema 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 ('Add') and resource ('DNS record to a zone'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'dns_update_record' or 'dns_create_zone', but the verb 'Add' suggests creation rather than modification or zone-level operations.

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 like 'dns_update_record' or 'dns_create_zone'. There's no mention of prerequisites, such as needing an existing DNS zone, or contextual cues for selection among DNS-related tools.

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