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' and 'pagelen' parameters) and that 'workspace' is optional if configured, which adds some context. However, it doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or whether this is a read-only operation (implied but not stated). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps.

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 adds value, with no wasted words. However, the 'Args' section could be slightly more concise by integrating defaults into the descriptions more seamlessly.

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 complexity (list operation with pagination), no annotations, and an output schema present (which handles return values), the description is moderately complete. It covers parameters well but lacks behavioral details like authentication or error handling. The output schema reduces the need to explain returns, but the description should still address more operational context for a tool with no annotations.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics for all three parameters: 'workspace' is described as 'Bitbucket workspace (optional if configured)', 'page' as 'Page number for pagination (default: 1)', and 'pagelen' as 'Number of results per page, max 100 (default: 25)'. This provides clear context beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't fully explain the 'configured' aspect for 'workspace'.

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 webhooks configured for a workspace.' It specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('webhooks configured for a workspace'), making it easy to understand. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'list_webhooks' (which likely lists repository webhooks), so it doesn't reach 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 'list_webhooks' (for repositories) or 'create_webhook', nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts for usage. The only implied usage is from the purpose statement, but no explicit guidelines are given.

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