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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions pagination behavior (page numbers, results per page with a max of 100) and that the workspace parameter is optional if configured, which adds useful operational context. However, it does not cover other important aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or whether this is a read-only operation (though 'List' implies it).

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 clearly labeled 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy. The front-loaded purpose statement immediately communicates the tool's function and use case.

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 that there is an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, the description does a good job covering purpose, parameters, and basic behavior. However, it could be more complete by mentioning authentication needs, error handling, or rate limits, especially since annotations are absent. The sibling tools include many write operations, so clarifying this is a read-only tool would help.

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' (Bitbucket workspace, optional if configured), 'page' (page number for pagination with default), and 'pagelen' (results per page with max 100 and default). This adds significant value beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't detail format constraints (e.g., workspace naming conventions) for 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 specific action ('List members') and resource ('of a Bitbucket workspace'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'list_workspaces' or 'list_workspace_permissions'. It also provides a specific use case ('to find users who can be added as reviewers'), which adds practical context beyond a generic listing function.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('to find users who can be added as reviewers'), providing clear context for its application. However, it does not mention when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools (e.g., 'get_user_permissions' or 'list_workspace_permissions'), which would be needed for a score of 5.

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