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. While it mentions pagination parameters (page, pagelen), it doesn't describe authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens when the PR doesn't exist. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's 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 appropriately sized and well-structured with clear sections (purpose, Args, Returns). Each sentence earns its place, though the 'Returns' section is somewhat redundant given the purpose statement. The information is front-loaded with the core purpose first.

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 (though not shown here), the description doesn't need to detail return values. However, for a tool with 5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description should provide more behavioral context about authentication, error handling, and usage scenarios to be fully complete.

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 compensates well by documenting all 5 parameters in the 'Args' section, explaining their purposes and defaults. It clarifies that 'workspace' is optional if configured, and specifies constraints like 'max 100' for pagelen. This adds substantial value 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 the list of commits in a Pull Request.' This is a specific verb ('Get') + resource ('commits in a Pull Request') combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_commit' or 'list_commits', which work on repositories rather than pull requests specifically.

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 'get_pull_request_diff' or 'get_pull_request_activity' that might provide related information, nor does it specify prerequisites or contextual constraints for using this tool effectively.

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