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 and optional workspace configuration, which adds some context. However, it doesn't cover critical aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'search' but not stated). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 front-loads the purpose in one sentence, followed by organized sections for arguments and returns. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant information. Minor improvements could include integrating the sections more fluidly, but it's efficient overall.

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 (4 parameters, 1 required), no annotations, and an output schema present, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose, parameters, and return overview, though it lacks behavioral details like error cases or performance limits. The output schema likely handles return values, so the description doesn't need to explain them in depth.

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 meaningful semantics for all parameters: 'query' as a search string, 'workspace' as optional Bitbucket workspace, and 'page'/'pagelen' for pagination with defaults and max values. This adds clear value beyond the bare schema, though it could detail query syntax or workspace configuration further.

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: 'Search for code across repositories in a workspace.' It specifies the verb ('search'), resource ('code'), and scope ('across repositories in a workspace'), which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_file_contents' or 'list_repositories', which are related but not direct alternatives for code search.

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 'get_file_contents' for retrieving specific file content or 'list_repositories' for browsing repositories, nor does it specify prerequisites (e.g., workspace configuration) or exclusions. Usage is implied by the purpose but lacks explicit context.

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