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 the tool creates a snippet and mentions a return value, but fails to describe critical behaviors like required permissions, error handling, side effects, or rate limits. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 structured with clear sections (Args, Returns) but includes redundant phrasing ('Create a new snippet' followed by parameter details). The 'Args' and 'Returns' labels are helpful, but the content could be more front-loaded and concise, with some sentences not adding significant value beyond listing parameters.

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 5 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description partially compensates by listing parameters and noting an output schema exists. However, for a mutation tool, it lacks details on permissions, errors, or behavioral context, making it incomplete despite the output schema covering 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists all 5 parameters with brief explanations (e.g., 'Snippet title', 'Filename for the snippet content'), adding basic semantics beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't elaborate on constraints, formats, or interactions between parameters, leaving gaps in understanding.

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 action ('Create a new snippet') and identifies the resource ('snippet'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'create_repository' or 'create_issue' beyond the resource type, missing explicit sibling distinction.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., authentication), use cases, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'list_snippets' or 'delete_snippet', leaving the agent without usage direction.

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