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 read operation ('Get'), which implies non-destructive behavior, but doesn't disclose authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or response format details. The description adds basic behavioral context but lacks depth for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 with clear sections (purpose, Args, Returns) and uses minimal sentences. Each part earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy. It could be slightly more concise by integrating the sections more fluidly, but overall it's efficient and front-loaded.

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 (2 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, parameters, and return scope. The output schema exists, so the description doesn't need to detail return values. However, it could improve by adding more behavioral context (e.g., authentication) given 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides meaningful semantics for both parameters: 'repo_slug: Repository slug (name)' and 'workspace: Bitbucket workspace (optional if configured)'. This clarifies what each parameter represents and the conditional requirement for 'workspace', adding significant 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 detailed information about a specific repository.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('repository'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_repositories' or 'get_workspace_details' that might provide related information. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling distinction.

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 through the parameter descriptions (e.g., 'optional if configured'), but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_repositories' for broader listings or other 'get_' tools for specific repository components. Usage is implied rather than explicitly stated.

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