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 behavior ('page' and 'pagelen' parameters with defaults) and the return format ('List of forked repositories'), which adds useful context. However, it doesn't cover other important aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or whether this is a read-only operation (though 'List' implies it likely is).

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 appropriately sized. It starts with a clear purpose statement, followed by organized sections for 'Args' and 'Returns'. Each sentence serves a specific function without redundancy. The only minor improvement would be integrating the parameter explanations more seamlessly rather than as a separate list.

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 (4 parameters, 1 required), no annotations, and the presence of an output schema (implied by 'Returns: List of forked repositories'), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose, all parameters with semantics, and the return type. However, it lacks context about authentication, error handling, or relationship to sibling tools, which prevents a perfect score.

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 significant value beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains all four parameters: 'repo_slug' (Repository slug/name), 'workspace' (Bitbucket workspace with optional context), 'page' (pagination with default), and 'pagelen' (results per page with max and default). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it doesn't provide examples or format details for 'repo_slug'.

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 forks of a repository.' This is a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('forks of a repository'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'fork_repository' or 'list_repositories', which would be needed for 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 sibling tools like 'fork_repository' (for creating forks) or 'list_repositories' (for listing all repositories), nor does it specify prerequisites or context for usage beyond the basic parameters.

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