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 the action is a read operation ('Get'), which implies non-destructive behavior, but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or response formats beyond 'File contents as text'. This leaves gaps in understanding the tool's full behavior.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by organized parameter and return value sections. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse for both humans and AI agents.

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 (4 parameters, 2 required), no annotations, and an output schema present (implied by 'Returns'), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, parameters, and return values adequately, though it could benefit from more behavioral context (e.g., error handling) to fully compensate for the lack of annotations.

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 provides detailed parameter semantics in the 'Args' section, explaining each parameter's purpose (e.g., 'ref' as 'Branch name, tag, or commit hash'), which compensates for the 0% schema description coverage. It clarifies optionality and defaults, adding significant value beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't cover edge cases or format examples.

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 contents of a file') and resource ('from a repository at a specific branch/commit'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_commit' or 'search_code' that operate on different resources. It precisely defines the tool's scope without being vague or tautological.

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 when file contents are needed from a repository, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_commit' (for metadata) or 'search_code' (for broader searches). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving usage context partially inferred rather than clearly defined.

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