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 only states the basic action. It lacks critical behavioral details: whether this is a destructive/permanent deletion, if it requires specific permissions, what happens on success/failure (e.g., confirmation message, error codes), or any rate limits. The description is minimal and misses key operational context.

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 front-loads the core action ('Remove') and resource, making it immediately understandable. Every word earns its place without redundancy or fluff.

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 destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'remove' entails (permanent deletion?), what the expected outcome is, or any side effects. For a mutation tool with zero structured behavioral data, 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 fully documents all three parameters (libraryId, videoId, srclang). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying 'srclang' identifies the caption track to remove. This meets the baseline of 3 since the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 specific action ('Remove') and resource ('a caption track from a video'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like stream_add_caption (adds) and stream_delete_video (deletes entire video). It precisely defines the tool's function without ambiguity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it's clear from the name and purpose that it deletes captions, there's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., existing caption tracks), error conditions, or comparisons to related tools like stream_update_video that might modify captions differently.

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