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 parameters ('page', 'pagelen') and a return type ('List of workspace permissions'), which adds some context. However, it fails to disclose critical behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, with a clear purpose statement followed by separate 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy. The front-loaded purpose statement makes the tool's intent immediately clear, enhancing usability.

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 (3 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose, parameters, and return value, and the output schema likely details the permission structure, reducing the need for extensive return explanations. However, it lacks behavioral context like authentication or error handling, which would be beneficial for full 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?

The description includes an 'Args' section that documents all three parameters with brief explanations, such as 'Bitbucket workspace (optional if configured)' and pagination details. Since the schema description coverage is 0%, this adds substantial value beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't elaborate on parameter formats, constraints, or examples, keeping the semantics somewhat basic.

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 with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('permissions for a workspace'), making it immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_user_permissions' or 'list_workspace_members' by focusing specifically on workspace-level permissions. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings, such as 'get_workspace_details', which might also involve permission-related data.

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 any prerequisites, such as needing workspace access or authentication, or compare it to similar tools like 'get_user_permissions' for user-specific permissions. This lack of context leaves the agent to infer usage scenarios without explicit direction.

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