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 behavior (page and pagelen parameters with defaults), which is useful, but lacks details on authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what 'List of comments' entails structurally. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 appropriately sized. It starts with a clear purpose statement, followed by a parameter breakdown and return information. Each sentence adds value, with no redundant or vague phrasing. Minor improvements could include bolding or bullet points, but it's efficient overall.

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, 2 required) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers parameters well but lacks behavioral context like authentication or error handling. With no annotations and an output schema, it meets minimum viability but isn't fully comprehensive.

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 substantial value beyond the input schema, which has 0% schema description coverage. It explains each parameter's purpose (e.g., 'Repository slug (name)', 'The commit hash', 'Bitbucket workspace (optional if configured)'), including defaults and constraints like 'max 100' for pagelen. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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: 'List comments on a specific commit.' It specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('comments on a specific commit'), making the action clear. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_issue_comments' or 'get_pull_request_comments' beyond the commit focus, 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 'list_issue_comments' or 'get_pull_request_comments' for comparison, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. The usage context is implied but not explicitly stated.

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