Bitbucket MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. While it mentions pagination behavior ('page' and 'pagelen' parameters with defaults), it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, what authentication is required, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'List of commits with their details' actually includes. The description provides minimal behavioral context beyond parameter listing.

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 uses a clear three-part structure (purpose, Args, Returns) but includes some redundancy. The 'Args:' and 'Returns:' labels are helpful, but the parameter explanations could be more concise. The structure is functional but not optimally efficient, with room for tighter phrasing while maintaining clarity.

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 (7 parameters, no annotations, but has output schema), the description covers parameter semantics well but lacks behavioral context. The existence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to detail return values, but it should provide more guidance on usage context, authentication, and error handling for a complete picture.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining all 7 parameters in the Args section, including their purposes, optionality, and default values. It clarifies that 'repo_slug' is the repository name, 'branch' filters commits, 'include/exclude' filter by commit hash, 'workspace' identifies the Bitbucket workspace, and 'page/pagelen' control pagination with specific constraints (max 100).

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 commits in a repository' with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('commits'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_commit' (singular) or 'list_commit_statuses', which would require more specific scope clarification.

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. With many sibling tools available (like 'get_commit' for single commits or 'list_pull_request_commits' for PR-specific commits), there's no indication of when this general listing tool is preferred over more specific alternatives.

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