Bitbucket MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions pagination parameters (page, pagelen) which hints at paginated results, but doesn't describe the return format beyond 'List of comments on the issue'—missing details like comment structure, error conditions, authentication requirements, or rate limits. For a read operation with 5 parameters, this leaves significant behavioral 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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a clear 'Args' and 'Returns' section. Every sentence earns its place by explaining parameters and output without redundancy. It's appropriately sized for a tool with multiple parameters, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 output schema), the description is partially complete. It covers parameter semantics well and notes the output is a list, but lacks behavioral context like authentication, error handling, or pagination behavior. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to detail return values, but overall gaps remain in usage guidelines and transparency.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides clear semantics for all 5 parameters: 'repo_slug' as repository name, 'issue_id' as Issue ID, 'workspace' as Bitbucket workspace with optionality noted, and pagination details for 'page' and 'pagelen' including defaults and max value. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't explain format specifics like slug conventions.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('comments on an issue'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from other comment-related tools like 'add_issue_comment' or 'delete_comment' by focusing on retrieval rather than creation or deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'list_commit_comments' or 'get_pull_request_comments', which are similar listing operations for different resources.

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 'get_issue' (which might include comments) or 'list_commit_comments' for different contexts, nor does it specify prerequisites such as needing repository access. The only implied usage is for retrieving comments, but explicit alternatives or exclusions are absent.

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