Bitbucket MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Trigger' implies a write/mutation operation, the description doesn't address critical behavioral aspects: required permissions, rate limits, whether this is idempotent, what happens if a pipeline is already running, or error handling specifics. The return statement is generic and doesn't explain success/failure patterns.

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 reasonably structured with clear sections (Args, Returns) but has some inefficiencies. The 'Trigger a new pipeline run' statement is redundant with the tool name. The variables example could be more concise. However, it's not overly verbose and information is well-organized.

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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations but with an output schema, the description provides adequate basic information. The parameter documentation is good, and the existence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to detail return values. However, for a pipeline triggering operation, more behavioral context about side effects, permissions, and error conditions would be beneficial.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate - and it does well. It provides semantic meaning for all 5 parameters: explains what 'repo_slug' represents, clarifies default behavior for 'branch', defines the format for 'variables' with a concrete example, and notes configuration context for 'workspace'. The only gap is not explaining the exact structure of 'custom_pipeline' beyond its name.

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 'Trigger a new pipeline run' - a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'stop_pipeline' or 'list_pipelines', which would require a 5. The purpose is unambiguous but lacks sibling differentiation.

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. There's no mention of prerequisites, when-not-to-use scenarios, or comparison with related tools like 'stop_pipeline' or 'get_pipeline'. The only contextual hint is the optional workspace parameter note, which is minimal guidance.

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