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 but doesn't mention required permissions, whether it's idempotent, rate limits, or error conditions beyond 'error message'. For a write tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 (purpose, args, returns) and uses bullet-like formatting. While efficient, the 'Args:' and 'Returns:' headers could be more integrated with the main text, and some phrasing ('optional if configured') could be slightly tightened.

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 (7 parameters, write operation) and no annotations, the description does well by documenting all parameters and noting the output schema exists. However, it lacks behavioral context (permissions, side effects) that would be crucial for safe agent use, preventing a perfect score.

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 fully compensates by providing comprehensive parameter documentation: it explains all 7 parameters, including optional status, defaults, enums for kind/priority, and format guidance (e.g., 'markdown', 'Account ID'). This adds substantial value beyond the bare schema.

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 new issue') and resource ('in a repository's issue tracker'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'update_issue' or 'list_issues'. It precisely communicates 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?

The description implies usage context through parameter documentation (e.g., 'optional if configured' for workspace), but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_issue' or prerequisites. It provides basic parameter context but no strategic usage advice.

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