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. It mentions that the tool returns 'PR details including URL and ID, or error message', which adds some behavioral context about outputs. However, it lacks critical details like authentication requirements, rate limits, side effects (e.g., notifications to reviewers), or error conditions beyond the generic mention.

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 for 'Args' and 'Returns', making it easy to scan. It is appropriately sized for an 8-parameter tool, with no redundant sentences. However, the 'Args' section is somewhat dense and could benefit from bullet points for better readability.

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, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is mostly complete. It covers all parameters and hints at return values, though it lacks behavioral details like authentication or error handling. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to fully describe returns, but more context on usage scenarios would improve completeness.

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 by explaining all 8 parameters in the 'Args' section, including semantics like 'Repository slug (name)', 'PR title', and optional/default values (e.g., 'default: main', 'optional'). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema, though it could be more detailed on formats (e.g., UUID format for reviewers).

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 Pull Request') and the target resource ('on Bitbucket Cloud'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'update_pull_request' or 'get_pull_request'. It uses precise terminology that matches the tool's name without being tautological.

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 through the tool's name and context, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_pull_request' or 'merge_pull_request'. It provides no guidance on prerequisites, such as requiring an existing repository or branch.

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