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 it 'Get details' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if it requires specific permissions, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the issue doesn't exist. The 'Returns' section mentions output fields but lacks depth on format or pagination.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the main purpose in the first sentence. The 'Args' and 'Returns' sections are structured for clarity, though the 'Returns' section could be more concise by listing fewer examples or integrating with the output schema. No wasted sentences, but minor verbosity in the returns 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 has an output schema (which reduces the need to explain return values in the description) and no annotations, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral details like error handling or usage context. For a simple read operation, this is adequate but has clear gaps in guidelines and transparency.

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 schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description adds value by explaining 'repo_slug' as 'Repository slug (name)', 'issue_id' as 'Issue ID', and 'workspace' as 'Bitbucket workspace (optional if configured)', which clarifies their roles. However, it doesn't fully compensate for the coverage gap by detailing formats (e.g., slug conventions) or when 'workspace' is required.

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 tool's purpose as 'Get details of a specific issue' with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('issue'), making it easy to understand. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_issues' or 'get_issue_comments', which would require mentioning it retrieves a single issue by ID rather than listing multiple issues or getting comments.

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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'list_issues' for browsing issues or 'update_issue' for modifying issues, nor does it specify prerequisites such as authentication or repository access. The optional 'workspace' parameter is noted but without context on when it's needed.

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