Bunny.net MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return value ('returns GUID for upload'), which is useful, but lacks critical details: it doesn't specify permissions required, whether this is a mutating operation (implied by 'Create'), error conditions, or rate limits. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 front-loads the core action ('Create a new video object') and includes the key outcome ('returns GUID for upload'). There is no wasted verbiage, and every word serves a purpose, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 (a creation operation with 3 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and return value but misses behavioral details like authentication needs, error handling, or what the GUID is used for. It's complete enough to understand the tool's intent but insufficient for robust usage without external context.

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 parameters (libraryId, title, collectionId) with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting, but no extra value is added.

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 a new video object') and the resource ('in a library'), which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'stream_update_video' or 'stream_delete_video' by focusing on creation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'stream_create_collection' in terms of resource type, which slightly reduces clarity.

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 library), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'stream_update_video' or 'stream_list_videos'. The agent must infer usage from the name and context alone.

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