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, pagelen with defaults and max) and that it returns a list of snippets, which is useful. However, it doesn't cover important aspects like whether this is a read-only operation (implied but not stated), authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or sorting/filtering capabilities beyond pagination.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by organized parameter and return value sections. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words. The formatting with clear sections (Args, Returns) enhances readability without being verbose.

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 (list operation with pagination), no annotations, and the presence of an output schema (which covers return values), the description does a good job. It explains all parameters thoroughly and states the return type. The main gaps are lack of behavioral context (auth, errors) and usage guidance relative to siblings, but the output schema reduces the need to describe return details.

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 provides clear explanations for all three parameters: workspace (optional if configured), page (default and purpose), and pagelen (default, purpose, and max value). This adds significant value beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't explain the format of workspace values or what 'configured' means.

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') and resource ('snippets in a workspace'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_snippet' (single snippet) and 'create_snippet', but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools like 'list_repositories' or 'list_issues' beyond the resource type.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to use 'list_snippets' vs 'get_snippet' (for a specific snippet) or other list tools, nor does it specify prerequisites like authentication or workspace context. The optional workspace parameter is noted but without context on when it's needed.

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