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. It states this is a 'Get' operation, implying it's read-only, but doesn't disclose other behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or pagination. The description is minimal and doesn't provide enough context for safe and effective use.

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. It front-loads the purpose in the first sentence, followed by clear 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. There's minimal waste, though it could be slightly more concise by integrating the parameter descriptions into the main 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 (3 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is partially complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines. The output schema exists, so the description doesn't need to detail return values, but other gaps remain.

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 includes an 'Args' section that names and briefly describes the three parameters, adding meaning beyond the input schema (which has 0% description coverage). However, it doesn't explain parameter formats (e.g., what a 'repo_slug' looks like), constraints, or examples. With low schema coverage, this provides basic but incomplete compensation.

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 a summary of files changed in a Pull Request with line counts.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('files changed in a Pull Request'), and output type ('summary...with line counts'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_pull_request_diff' or 'get_commit_diffstat', which reduces it from a perfect score.

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' (which might provide full diff content) or 'get_commit_diffstat' (which might be for commits rather than PRs). There's no context about prerequisites, timing, or exclusions for usage.

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