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 the project key must be globally unique, what happens on duplicate keys, rate limits, or authentication requirements. The 'Returns' section mentions error messages but doesn't describe success/failure patterns.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value, though the 'Returns' line could be more specific about what 'Created project details' includes. The formatting helps readability without unnecessary verbosity.

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 complexity of a creation tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values), the description is moderately complete. It covers parameter semantics well but lacks behavioral context like permissions, error handling details, and sibling tool differentiation that would make it fully comprehensive.

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 compensates well by explaining all 5 parameters: it clarifies that 'key' must be uppercase letters and numbers, 'description' is optional, 'is_private' defaults to True, and 'workspace' is optional if configured. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't specify length limits or validation rules for 'name' and 'key'.

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 verb ('Create') and resource ('new project in a workspace'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_repository' or 'create_snippet' beyond the resource type, which prevents a perfect score.

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 'create_repository' or 'list_projects'. It mentions that 'workspace' is optional if configured, which is a minor usage hint, but lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or sibling tool comparisons.

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