Bitbucket MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates this is a creation operation (implying mutation) and mentions the return format ('Created repository details or error message'), but doesn't address important behavioral aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens on duplicate repository names. It provides basic behavioral context but misses key operational details.

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 for parameters. While efficient, the parameter explanations could be slightly more concise, and the 'Returns' section could be integrated more smoothly. Overall, it's front-loaded and organized with minimal waste.

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, creation operation), no annotations, but with an output schema present, the description provides good coverage. It explains all parameters thoroughly and mentions the return format. The main gap is lack of behavioral context like authentication needs or error handling, but the parameter documentation is excellent and the output schema handles return values.

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 and 7 parameters, the description provides comprehensive parameter documentation in the 'Args' section, explaining each parameter's purpose, optionality, defaults, and valid values (e.g., fork_policy options). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions and adds significant 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 repository') and resource ('in a Bitbucket workspace'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'fork_repository' or 'update_repository'. It provides a complete verb+resource+scope statement that leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 the mention of Bitbucket workspace and optional parameters, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'fork_repository' or 'create_project'. It provides basic context but lacks explicit guidance on tool selection scenarios.

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