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 mentions the tool deletes a branch but lacks critical details such as permissions required, whether the deletion is permanent or reversible, or any side effects (e.g., impact on open pull requests). This is inadequate for a destructive operation.

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 purpose, arguments, and returns, making it easy to scan. It is concise with no unnecessary information, though the 'Args' and 'Returns' labels could be more integrated into the flow.

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 destructive nature, lack of annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete—it misses behavioral details like safety warnings or error handling. However, the presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, and the parameter descriptions partially compensate for schema gaps.

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?

The description includes an 'Args' section that names and briefly describes the three parameters, adding value beyond the schema (which has 0% description coverage). However, it does not provide detailed semantics like format examples or constraints, 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 ('Delete') and resource ('a branch from a repository'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_repository' or 'delete_tag', which would require a 5.

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 (e.g., other deletion tools like 'delete_repository' or 'delete_tag'), nor does it mention prerequisites or conditions for use. The description only states what it does without context.

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