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 states this is a read operation ('Get details'), which implies safety, but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the commit doesn't exist. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. It's appropriately sized with no redundant information. The only minor improvement would be integrating the parameter explanations more seamlessly rather than as a separate list.

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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, but has output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It explains all parameters and return values ('Commit details including message, author, date, and parents'). The output schema existence means it doesn't need to detail return structure, but it could better address behavioral aspects like error handling.

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 clearly explains all three parameters: 'repo_slug' as 'Repository slug (name)', 'commit_hash' as 'The commit hash', and 'workspace' as 'Bitbucket workspace (optional if configured)'. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema types, though it could elaborate on format expectations (e.g., hash length).

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 ('Get details') and resource ('a specific commit'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'list_commits' (which lists multiple commits) and 'get_commit_diff' (which focuses on changes). It precisely communicates the tool's function without redundancy.

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_commits' or 'get_pull_request_commits'. It mentions the workspace parameter is optional if configured, but offers no context about prerequisites, dependencies, or typical use cases for commit details retrieval.

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