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. It states the action ('Add') which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't address critical behavioral aspects like required permissions, whether the operation is idempotent, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens on success (e.g., returns a caption ID). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the essential action and resource, making it immediately scannable. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or verbose phrasing.

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 this is a mutation tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address what the tool returns, error handling, side effects, or dependencies. While the schema covers parameter basics, the description fails to provide the broader context needed for safe and effective use, especially for a write operation.

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 5 parameters with basic descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain relationships between parameters (e.g., that 'srclang' and 'label' should be consistent), format details for 'captionsFile', or constraints. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate but minimal value added over the comprehensive schema.

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 ('caption/subtitle track to a video'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'stream_delete_caption' or 'stream_update_video', but the verb 'Add' provides basic distinction. The description avoids tautology by specifying what is being added rather than just restating the tool 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing video), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'stream_update_video' or 'stream_delete_caption'. The agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and description without explicit context.

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