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. It states the tool is a read operation ('Get') and describes the return format, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or whether it's a safe operation. The description adds basic context but lacks important operational details.

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?

Perfectly structured with a clear purpose statement followed by organized sections for Args and Returns. Every sentence earns its place - the first sentence establishes purpose, parameter explanations are essential, and the return statement is necessary. No wasted words.

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?

For a read-only tool with 3 parameters and an output schema, the description is quite complete. It covers purpose, all parameters with semantics, and return format. The main gap is lack of behavioral context (auth, errors, limits) which would be helpful despite the output schema. Given the tool's relative simplicity, it's mostly adequate.

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 fully compensates by explaining all 3 parameters: 'repo_slug' as repository name, 'spec' as commit hash or range with examples, 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 specific action ('Get the diffstat'), resource ('for a commit or commit range'), and output format ('summary of changes'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_commit_diff' (full diff) and 'get_pull_request_diffstat' (PR-specific) by focusing on commit-level diffstat.

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 implies usage context through the parameter explanations (e.g., 'optional if configured' for workspace), but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_commit_diff' or 'get_pull_request_diffstat'. No explicit exclusions or prerequisites are provided.

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