Bitbucket MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions pagination defaults and limits (page, pagelen with max 100), which is useful. However, it doesn't describe authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens when workspace is null. 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 clear sections (Args, Returns) and front-loaded purpose. Each sentence adds value, though the 'Returns' section is somewhat redundant given the existence of an output schema. The description could be slightly more concise by omitting the obvious return statement.

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 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description does a reasonable job explaining parameters but lacks behavioral context. The existence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to detail return values. However, for a listing tool with pagination and filtering, more guidance on usage patterns and limitations would improve 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It successfully explains all 4 parameters: workspace (optional if configured), page (default and purpose), pagelen (default, max, and purpose), and query (purpose). This adds substantial value beyond the bare schema, though it could provide more detail about workspace configuration or query syntax to reach a perfect score.

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 action ('List repositories') and target ('in a Bitbucket workspace'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'list_repository_forks' or 'list_workspaces', which would require explicit comparison to achieve a score of 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it mentions the 'query' parameter for filtering by name, it doesn't explain when to use this versus other listing tools like 'list_repository_forks' or 'list_projects'. There's no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases.

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