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 reveals pagination behavior (page/pagelen parameters with defaults) and that workspace is optional if configured, which adds useful operational context. However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or whether this is a read-only operation (though 'List' implies reading).

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 perfectly structured and economical: a clear purpose statement followed by organized parameter documentation and return value indication. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant information. The information is front-loaded with the core purpose immediately stated.

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, but with an output schema indicated, the description provides good coverage. It explains all parameters thoroughly and indicates return values. However, for a tool with no annotations, it could benefit from mentioning authentication or rate limit considerations 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 fully compensates by providing clear documentation for all 4 parameters: repo_slug (repository slug/name), workspace (optional Bitbucket workspace), page (page number with default), and pagelen (results per page with max and default). This adds substantial value beyond the bare schema, explaining purpose, defaults, and constraints.

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 specific action ('List webhooks') and resource ('configured for a repository'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'list_workspace_webhooks' (which lists webhooks at workspace level) and 'create_webhook'/'delete_webhook' (which are write operations). The verb+resource combination is precise and unambiguous.

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 documentation (repository focus, optional workspace) and distinguishes from 'list_workspace_webhooks' by specifying repository scope. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria, leaving some guidance implicit rather than explicit.

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