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 mentions pagination and filtering, which is useful, but fails to cover critical aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or whether it's a read-only operation. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's 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 with the core purpose, followed by structured parameter and return details. Every sentence adds value, such as clarifying defaults and limits, making it efficient without unnecessary verbosity.

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, 5 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema present, the description is partially complete. It covers parameters well but lacks behavioral context like safety or performance traits. The output schema handles return values, so the description need not explain them, but overall completeness is adequate with clear gaps.

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 semantics beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains each parameter's purpose, such as 'repo_slug' as the repository name, 'workspace' as optional, and 'query' for filtering branches by name. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it could detail format constraints like slug patterns.

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 as 'List branches in a repository,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_commits' or 'list_tags,' which are also list operations on repository resources, so it misses full 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks context on prerequisites, such as needing repository access, and does not mention sibling tools like 'list_tags' or 'list_commits' for different listing purposes, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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