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. It mentions authentication ('authenticated user') and the return type ('List of workspaces with their details'), but lacks details on pagination, rate limits, error handling, or what specific details are included. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral disclosure.

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 concise and front-loaded, with the core purpose in the first sentence and additional return information in the second. Both sentences add value: the first defines the action, and the second clarifies the output. There's no wasted verbiage, though minor improvements in structure (e.g., merging sentences) could push it to 5.

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 low complexity (0 parameters, read-only operation) and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and output, but lacks behavioral details (e.g., pagination, authentication scope) that would be helpful despite the output schema. With no annotations, it should provide more context for a complete understanding.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's purpose and output. A baseline of 4 is applied since it avoids unnecessary parameter details for a parameterless tool.

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 all workspaces the authenticated user has access to.' It specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('workspaces'), and distinguishes from siblings like 'get_workspace_details' by indicating it returns multiple workspaces rather than details of one. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools (e.g., 'list_repositories'), keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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 when to prefer 'list_workspaces' over 'get_workspace_details' or other list tools, nor does it specify any prerequisites or exclusions. This lack of contextual guidance limits its utility for an AI agent.

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