Bitbucket 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 states the tool adds a comment but does not cover critical aspects like required permissions, whether the action is reversible, rate limits, or error handling beyond a vague mention of 'error message'. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior safely.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by clear sections for arguments and returns. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse for an agent.

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 moderate complexity (4 parameters, no annotations), the description covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral details like permissions or side effects. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but overall completeness is adequate yet with notable gaps for safe 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?

The description adds meaningful context for parameters beyond the schema, which has 0% coverage. It clarifies that 'content' supports markdown and 'workspace' is optional if configured, providing practical usage details. However, it does not explain 'repo_slug' or 'issue_id' formats, leaving some ambiguity.

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 a comment') and target resource ('to an issue'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'add_inline_comment' or 'add_pull_request_comment', which handle comments in different contexts, leaving some potential for confusion.

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_inline_comment' or 'add_pull_request_comment', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. It lacks context for tool selection, which could lead to misuse in a multi-tool environment.

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