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 states the tool retrieves 'public profile information,' which implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, but it doesn't clarify authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what specific fields are included in the profile. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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 concise and well-structured, using a clear purpose statement followed by brief sections for 'Args' and 'Returns.' Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It could be slightly more front-loaded by integrating the parameter explanation into the main description, but overall it's efficient and easy to parse.

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 low complexity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameter semantics but lacks usage guidelines and detailed behavioral context. With no annotations, it should provide more guidance on authentication or error handling to be fully adequate for an agent.

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 adds minimal semantics beyond the input schema. It explains that the 'username' parameter can be a 'Bitbucket username or UUID,' which provides context not in the schema (which has 0% description coverage). However, it doesn't detail format constraints, examples, or how to handle invalid inputs. With one parameter and low schema coverage, the description compensates slightly but not fully, aligning with the baseline.

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 user's public profile information.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('user's public profile information'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_current_user' or 'get_user_permissions', which prevents 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_current_user' (which might retrieve the authenticated user's profile) or 'get_user_permissions' (which focuses on permissions rather than profile details). Without this context, an agent might struggle to choose the right tool in a given scenario.

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