Bitbucket MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action ('Remove a reviewer') but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether the action is reversible, error conditions, or rate limits. The mention of 'Returns: Updated reviewer list or error message' adds minimal context but is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 clear purpose statement followed by 'Args:' and 'Returns:' sections. It is appropriately sized without unnecessary details, though the 'Returns' section could be more concise by integrating with the purpose statement.

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 (mutation with 4 parameters), no annotations, and an output schema present, the description is moderately complete. It covers parameters well but lacks behavioral context like permissions or side effects. The output schema reduces the need to detail return values, but gaps remain in usage and transparency.

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 adds meaningful semantics by explaining each parameter's purpose (e.g., 'repo_slug: Repository slug (name)', 'reviewer: UUID or account_id of the reviewer to remove') and notes optionality for 'workspace'. This clarifies beyond the bare schema, though it lacks format details like UUID structure.

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 ('Remove a reviewer') and target resource ('from a Pull Request'), which directly matches the tool name. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'add_reviewer' by specifying the opposite operation, making the purpose unambiguous and well-defined.

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 or any prerequisites. While it implies usage in the context of pull request management, it lacks explicit instructions on scenarios, permissions needed, or comparisons with related tools like 'unapprove_pull_request' or 'decline_pull_request'.

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