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 mentions pagination parameters ('page', 'pagelen') and returns a list, but doesn't describe authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what specific event types are included beyond 'comments, approvals, and updates'. For a read operation with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant 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 and appropriately sized. The first sentence clearly states the purpose, followed by a parameter breakdown and return statement. Each sentence earns its place, though the 'Args:' and 'Returns:' formatting could be more integrated with the main description text.

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 (5 parameters, 2 required), 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, but with an output schema (implied by 'Returns: List of activity events'), the description is partially complete. It covers parameters well but lacks behavioral context and usage guidance. The output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but more context on authentication, errors, and sibling differentiation would improve completeness.

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 provides clear explanations for all 5 parameters: 'repo_slug: Repository slug (name)', 'pr_id: Pull Request ID', 'workspace: Bitbucket workspace (optional if configured)', 'page: Page number for pagination (default: 1)', 'pagelen: Number of results per page, max 100 (default: 50)'. This adds substantial value beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't explain format constraints (e.g., what constitutes a valid 'repo_slug').

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 the activity/timeline of a Pull Request including comments, approvals, and updates.' This specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('activity/timeline of a Pull Request'), and scope ('comments, approvals, and updates'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_pull_request_comments' or 'get_pull_request', which might overlap in functionality.

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. With sibling tools like 'get_pull_request_comments' and 'get_pull_request' available, there's no indication of how this tool differs or when it's preferred. The description only states what it does, not when to use it.

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