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 states this is a list operation (implying read-only) and mentions the return format ('List of pipeline steps with their details'), but doesn't cover important behaviors like pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or whether the list is filtered/sorted. 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 reasonably concise with clear sections (purpose, args, returns). However, the 'Args:' and 'Returns:' sections are somewhat redundant since the schema and output schema exist. The description could be more front-loaded by integrating parameter explanations into a single flowing paragraph rather than separate labeled sections.

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 that an output schema exists (so return values are documented elsewhere), the description provides adequate context for a read operation. It explains all parameters despite 0% schema coverage and states the return type. However, for a tool with no annotations, it should provide more behavioral context about pagination, permissions, or error handling to be fully complete.

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 must compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation. The description provides clear explanations for all three parameters: 'repo_slug: Repository slug (name)', 'pipeline_uuid: Pipeline UUID (with or without braces)', and 'workspace: Bitbucket workspace (optional if configured)'. This adds substantial value beyond the bare schema, though it could provide more context about format expectations or examples.

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 ('steps in a pipeline'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_pipelines' (which lists pipelines) and 'get_pipeline' (which gets pipeline details). However, it doesn't specify whether this lists all steps or filtered steps, 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 when this tool is appropriate compared to 'get_pipeline' (which might include steps) or 'get_pipeline_step_log' (which gets step details). The optional workspace parameter has minimal explanation ('optional if configured'), but this doesn't constitute meaningful usage guidance.

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