Bitbucket MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a creation operation but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether it's idempotent, what happens if a tag with the same name exists, rate limits, or authentication needs. The mention of 'error message' in returns hints at potential failures but lacks specifics.

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 (Args, Returns) and uses bullet points for readability. It's appropriately sized for a 4-parameter tool, with no redundant information. However, the 'Returns' section could be more concise by leveraging the output schema.

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 (creation tool with 4 parameters), no annotations, and an output schema present, the description is moderately complete. It covers basic purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral context (permissions, idempotency) and usage guidelines. The output schema reduces the need to detail return values, but the description still misses key operational insights.

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 4 parameters with brief explanations (e.g., 'Repository slug (name)', 'Commit hash to tag'), adding meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't provide format details (e.g., slug conventions, hash length), validation rules, or examples, 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 tag') and resource ('in a repository'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'delete_tag' and 'list_tags' by specifying creation rather than deletion or listing. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other creation tools like 'create_branch' or 'create_issue' beyond the resource type.

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. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing repository access), when not to use it (e.g., if a tag already exists), or comparisons to similar tools like 'create_branch' or 'create_issue'. The optional workspace parameter is noted but without context on when it's needed.

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