Bitbucket MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it's a read operation ('Get'), but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'details' include. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps, though it correctly indicates a read operation.

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 concise, with a clear purpose statement followed by separate Args and Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place, and there's no redundant information. It could be slightly more front-loaded with key details, but overall it's efficient.

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 that there's an output schema (implied by 'Returns: Project details'), the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and 2 parameters, the description provides basic purpose and structure but lacks depth on usage, parameters, and behavior. It's minimally adequate but has clear gaps for effective tool invocation.

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 lists parameters in an 'Args' section, naming 'project_key' and 'workspace', but provides no semantic context—what a 'project key' is, how to find it, or what the 'workspace' parameter means. The description adds parameter names but minimal meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema.

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: 'Get details of a specific project' with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('project'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'list_projects' by focusing on a single project rather than listing multiple. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'create_project' or other project-related tools, keeping it at a 4 rather than a 5.

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 when to use 'get_project' versus 'list_projects' or other project-related operations, nor does it discuss prerequisites or context for usage. The optional workspace parameter hint is minimal and doesn't constitute meaningful usage guidance.

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