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. It mentions pagination behavior ('page' and 'pagelen' with defaults) and that it returns a list of PRs, which is helpful. However, it lacks critical details: it doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or whether it's a read-only operation (though 'List' implies reading). For a tool with no annotations, 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 with a purpose statement followed by organized sections for Args and Returns. Each sentence earns its place by providing essential information. However, it could be slightly more concise by integrating the purpose into the Args section, and the 'Returns' line is somewhat redundant given the output schema, but it's still efficient overall.

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, 1 required), no annotations, and an output schema present, the description is mostly complete. It thoroughly documents parameters and hints at behavior (pagination). The output schema handles return values, so the description doesn't need to detail them. However, it lacks authentication or error context, which is a minor gap for a tool with no annotations.

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 fully. It does so excellently: it explains all 5 parameters with clear semantics beyond the schema. For example, it defines 'repo_slug' as 'Repository slug (name)', lists allowed values for 'state' (OPEN, MERGED, etc.), clarifies 'workspace' as optional if configured, and details pagination defaults and limits. This adds substantial value over 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: 'List Pull Requests for a repository on Bitbucket Cloud.' It specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('Pull Requests'), and distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_pull_request' (which retrieves a single PR) and 'list_repositories' (which lists repositories, not PRs). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all similar siblings (e.g., 'list_issues' for issue listing), so it's not a perfect 5.

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 implies usage context through the parameter explanations (e.g., 'optional if configured' for workspace), but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. For instance, it doesn't mention using 'get_pull_request' for a single PR or 'list_issues' for issues instead. The guidance is limited to parameter defaults and optionality, not broader tool selection.

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