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 'Create' implies a write operation, it doesn't specify permissions required, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on duplicate names, or what the return value contains. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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 maximally concise at just four words, front-loading the essential action and resource. Every word earns its place with zero wasted verbiage or redundant information.

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 creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address what happens after creation, whether there are size/quantity limits for collections, how collections relate to videos, or what the tool returns. The agent would need to guess about important behavioral aspects.

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, the schema already documents both parameters adequately. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain what a 'video collection' represents conceptually or provide context about valid libraryIds or naming conventions.

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 ('Create') and resource ('video collection'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its sibling 'stream_create_video' beyond the resource type, missing an opportunity to clarify the distinction between creating collections versus individual videos.

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. There's no mention of prerequisites (like needing a libraryId), when collections are appropriate versus standalone videos, or how this relates to sibling tools like 'stream_list_collections' or 'stream_delete_collection'.

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