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. It mentions the tool updates a PR but lacks critical details: whether it requires specific permissions, if updates are partial or overwrite existing data, what happens with optional null values, or any rate limits/error conditions. The return statement is generic and doesn't describe the output structure.

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 opening sentence followed by parameter and return sections. It's appropriately sized for an 8-parameter tool, though the return statement could be more specific. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant information.

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 8 parameters), no annotations, and an output schema (implied by 'Has output schema: true'), the description is moderately complete. It covers parameters well but lacks behavioral context (permissions, partial updates, error handling). The output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but more operational guidance would improve completeness.

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 description includes an 'Args' section that documents all 8 parameters with clear semantics, compensating for the 0% schema description coverage. It explains optionality, provides examples (e.g., 'empty list [] to remove all reviewers'), and clarifies data types. However, it doesn't specify format constraints (e.g., UUID format for reviewers) or dependencies between parameters.

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 action ('Update/edit') and resource ('an existing Pull Request on Bitbucket Cloud'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_issue' or 'update_repository' beyond the resource name, which prevents 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 like 'create_pull_request' or 'merge_pull_request', nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., needing edit permissions) or contextual constraints. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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