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 behavior ('page', 'pagelen') and the return format ('List of repositories and the user's permission level for each'), which adds some context. However, it lacks details on authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or whether the operation is safe (read-only) versus destructive.

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 concise, with a clear purpose statement followed by organized sections for 'Args' and 'Returns'. Each sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it easy to scan and understand.

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 fairly complete. It covers the purpose, parameters, and return values adequately. The output schema existence means the description doesn't need to detail return structures, but it could improve by addressing behavioral aspects like authentication or error handling.

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 documents all three parameters (workspace, page, pagelen) with meanings and defaults, compensating for the 0% schema description coverage. It clarifies that 'workspace' is optional for filtering, 'page' defaults to 1, and 'pagelen' has a max of 100 with a default of 25, 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 the current user's repository permissions.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('current user's repository permissions'), making the intent unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_workspace_permissions' or 'get_user_profile', which could provide overlapping 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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as authentication requirements, or compare it to sibling tools like 'list_workspace_permissions' or 'get_user_profile' that might offer similar or related data. Usage context is implied but not stated.

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