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 it's a read operation ('Get'), which implies non-destructive, but doesn't cover other aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'detailed information' entails. For a tool with no annotations, 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence clearly states the purpose, followed by structured 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. There's minimal waste, though the 'Returns' section is somewhat vague ('Workspace details') and could be more specific if not covered by an output schema.

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 (1 parameter, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is partially complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameter semantics adequately, but lacks behavioral details (e.g., permissions, errors). The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but overall, it could provide more context for safe and effective use.

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 meaningful context beyond the input schema: it explains that 'workspace' is a 'Bitbucket workspace slug' and notes it's 'optional if configured.' Since schema description coverage is 0% (the schema only defines the parameter type without descriptions), this compensates well by clarifying the parameter's purpose and default behavior, though it could specify what 'configured' means.

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 workspace.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('workspace'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_workspaces' or 'list_workspace_members,' which would require a more specific scope statement.

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 implied usage through the parameter note: 'optional if configured,' suggesting this tool is for retrieving details of a specific workspace, possibly defaulting to a configured one. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'list_workspaces' (for multiple workspaces) or other workspace-related tools, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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