Bitbucket MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions pagination behavior ('page', 'pagelen') and optional filtering, but does not cover critical aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or whether it's a read-only operation. For a tool with 7 parameters and no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by detailed parameter explanations in a bullet-like format. It is appropriately sized for a tool with 7 parameters, though the 'Returns' section is brief and could be more informative. Every sentence adds value, but minor improvements in flow are possible.

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 complexity (7 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is largely complete. It thoroughly documents parameters and mentions pagination, but lacks behavioral details like rate limits or error cases. The output schema existence reduces the need to explain return values, but more context on usage and behavior would enhance completeness.

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, optionality, default values, and valid values (e.g., for 'state' and 'priority'). This compensates fully for the schema's lack of descriptions, making parameter meanings clear and actionable.

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 issues in a repository's issue tracker.' It specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('issues'), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_issue' (which retrieves a single issue) or 'list_issue_comments' (which lists comments on issues). The purpose is clear but lacks 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 does not mention sibling tools like 'get_issue' for single issues or 'search_code' for broader searches, nor does it specify prerequisites such as repository access or authentication requirements. Usage context is implied but not explicit.

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