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' with defaults) and implies a read-only operation by using 'List,' but it doesn't cover aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or whether it's safe for repeated use. The description adds some context but lacks comprehensive behavioral details.

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, with a clear purpose statement followed by organized 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information, though the 'Returns' section could be slightly more detailed (e.g., mentioning pagination in returns). It's front-loaded with the main action, making it efficient.

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, but has an output schema), the description is fairly complete. It covers all parameters in detail and states the return value. However, it lacks behavioral context (e.g., error cases, pagination details in returns) and usage guidelines, which slightly reduces completeness for a tool in this context.

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?

Given a schema description coverage of 0%, the description fully compensates by detailing all 5 parameters in the 'Args' section. It explains each parameter's purpose (e.g., 'repo_slug: Repository slug (name)'), optionality (e.g., 'workspace: Bitbucket workspace (optional if configured)'), and defaults (e.g., 'page: Page number for pagination (default: 1)'), 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 with 'List build statuses for a specific commit,' specifying both the verb ('List') and resource ('build statuses') with the scope ('for a specific commit'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_commit' or 'list_commits,' which focus on commits rather than their build statuses, leaving some ambiguity in sibling context.

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 such as prerequisites (e.g., needing a configured workspace), comparison to similar tools (e.g., 'get_commit' for commit details), or exclusions (e.g., not for listing all commits). This omission leaves usage unclear in the broader toolset.

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