Bitbucket 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. It states this is a creation operation (implying mutation/write), but doesn't mention required permissions, authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or whether the operation is idempotent. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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 clear sections (Args, Returns) and uses bullet-point-like formatting. The opening sentence directly states the purpose, followed by organized parameter documentation. While slightly verbose due to listing all parameters, every sentence adds value and there's no 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?

Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, mutation operation) and lack of annotations, the description provides good parameter documentation but lacks behavioral context. The presence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to detail return values, but it should address permissions, error cases, and usage context more thoroughly for a mutation tool.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description provides significant value by documenting all 8 parameters with clear explanations. It specifies which parameters are required versus optional, provides the exact enum values for 'state', and clarifies the purpose of each parameter (e.g., 'key' as 'Unique key for this build status'). This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 ('Create a build status') and target resource ('for a commit'), using precise terminology. It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'create_issue' or 'create_pull_request' by focusing specifically on build statuses for commits, not other Bitbucket entities.

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. While sibling tools include 'list_commit_statuses' which might retrieve existing statuses, there's no explicit comparison or context about when creation versus listing is appropriate. No prerequisites, exclusions, or workflow context are mentioned.

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