Bitbucket MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is an update operation but doesn't mention whether it requires specific permissions, if changes are reversible, what happens to unspecified settings, or any rate limits. The return statement hints at possible errors but lacks detail on success/error formats.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose but includes a verbose parameter list that duplicates information that could be in the schema. The structure (purpose, args, returns) is logical, but some sentences like 'Update repository settings.' are overly terse, and the parameter explanations could be more integrated.

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 8 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description does well to document parameters but lacks behavioral context (e.g., permissions, side effects). The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but overall completeness is moderate due to missing usage and transparency details.

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 clear semantics for all 8 parameters, explaining what each represents (e.g., 'repo_slug: Repository slug (name)', 'fork_policy: Fork policy - "allow_forks", "no_public_forks", or "no_forks"'), which adds significant value beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't clarify interactions between parameters or default behaviors.

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 verb ('Update') and resource ('repository settings'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_repository' or 'delete_repository' beyond the obvious verb difference, nor does it mention what specific settings are updated beyond the parameters listed.

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_repository' or 'delete_repository', nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication, permissions) or typical use cases. The only implied usage is updating settings, but no context is given.

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