Bitbucket MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action ('Add') but lacks behavioral details such as required permissions, whether comments are editable/deletable, rate limits, or error handling. The description mentions 'Returns: Comment details or error message', which hints at output but is vague.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by 'Args:' and 'Returns:' sections. It's front-loaded and efficient, though the 'Returns' line could be more specific (e.g., describing 'Comment details' further).

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 6 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description partially compensates by explaining parameters and hinting at output. However, as a mutation tool (adding comments), it lacks details on permissions, side effects, and error cases. An output schema exists, so return values needn't be fully described, but behavioral gaps remain.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists all 6 parameters with brief explanations (e.g., 'Comment text (supports markdown)', 'optional if configured'), adding meaningful context beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't detail formats (e.g., for 'repo_slug') or constraints (e.g., valid 'line' ranges).

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 an inline comment') and target ('on a specific line of code in a Pull Request'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'add_pull_request_comment' (likely general PR comments) and 'add_issue_comment'. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with these siblings in the description text itself.

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 'add_pull_request_comment' or 'add_issue_comment'. It mentions the tool's function but offers no context about prerequisites, appropriate scenarios, or exclusions.

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