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 action is 'Delete' which implies a destructive mutation, but doesn't clarify if this is permanent, requires specific permissions, or has side effects. The mention of 'Confirmation or error message' in returns adds minimal context about response format.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by organized Args and Returns sections. Every sentence serves a purpose, though the returns statement could be slightly more specific about what 'Confirmation' entails.

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 this is a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and an output schema exists, the description is moderately complete. It covers parameters well and mentions return types, but lacks important context about permissions, irreversibility, and relationship to sibling tools like 'list_webhooks' that would typically precede this operation.

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 well by explaining all three parameters: 'repo_slug' as repository name, 'webhook_uid' as UUID format with brace details, and 'workspace' as optional Bitbucket workspace. This adds crucial semantic meaning beyond the bare schema types.

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 webhook from a repository'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_repository' or 'delete_tag' beyond the resource type, which prevents a perfect score.

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 like 'list_webhooks' for checking existing webhooks or 'create_webhook' for creating them. It also doesn't mention prerequisites such as needing the webhook UUID from a list operation first.

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