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 indicates this is a read operation ('Check' and 'get'), implying it's non-destructive, but does not specify authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or response format details beyond high-level content. It adds some context about what the status includes (conflicts, approvals, blockers) but lacks operational specifics.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The 'Args' and 'Returns' sections are clearly separated, making it easy to scan. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and the total length is appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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 reasonably complete. It explains the purpose, parameters, and return content at a high level. The presence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to detail return values extensively, but it could benefit from more behavioral context (e.g., authentication, errors) to fully compensate for the lack of annotations.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides clear semantic explanations for all three parameters: 'repo_slug' as 'Repository slug (name)', 'pr_id' as 'Pull Request ID', and 'workspace' as 'Bitbucket workspace (optional if configured)'. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it could include examples or format details (e.g., what a 'slug' looks like).

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 specific action ('Check if a Pull Request can be merged') and the resource ('Pull Request'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'merge_pull_request' (which performs the merge) and 'get_pull_request' (which retrieves general PR info). The phrase 'and get merge status details' further clarifies the dual purpose of checking mergeability and retrieving detailed status.

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 implies usage context by specifying it checks merge status, suggesting it should be used before attempting to merge a pull request. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_pull_request' (which might include some status) or 'merge_pull_request' (which performs the merge), nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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