Bitbucket MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose with no ambiguity. Tools are organized by resource type (repositories, pull requests, issues, pipelines, etc.) and action (create, get, list, update, delete), making it easy to distinguish between them. Even similar-sounding tools like 'add_pull_request_comment' and 'add_inline_comment' have clear distinctions in their descriptions.
Naming Consistency5/5
The tool names follow a highly consistent verb_noun pattern throughout all 79 tools. Every tool uses snake_case with clear action verbs (create, get, list, update, delete, add, remove, etc.) followed by specific resource nouns. There are no deviations in naming conventions across the entire set.
Tool Count2/5
With 79 tools, this is an extremely large set that feels overwhelming for the Bitbucket domain. While Bitbucket has many features, this count goes beyond typical well-scoped servers (3-15 tools) and even beyond borderline heavy sets (16-25 tools). The sheer volume makes it difficult for agents to navigate and understand the complete surface area.
Completeness5/5
The tool set provides comprehensive CRUD/lifecycle coverage across all Bitbucket domains including repositories, pull requests, issues, pipelines, snippets, webhooks, and more. Every resource type has create, read, update, and delete operations where applicable, plus specialized actions like merge, approve, fork, and search. There are no obvious gaps in the surface area.
Average 3.3/5 across 79 of 79 tools scored. Lowest: 2.7/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
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 mentions that it returns a 'Confirmation or error message', which hints at the outcome but doesn't specify whether deletion is permanent, reversible, requires specific permissions, or has side effects (e.g., affecting linked content). For a destructive operation, this is insufficient detail.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the core action ('Delete a snippet'), followed by structured sections for Args and Returns. It's efficient with minimal waste, though the Args section could be integrated more smoothly. Every sentence serves a purpose, making it clear and easy to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (destructive operation with 2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action and parameters but lacks critical details like permissions, irreversibility, and error conditions. The output schema helps, but the description should do more to compensate for missing annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description lists the parameters ('snippet_id' and 'workspace') and notes that workspace is optional if configured, adding context beyond the schema's 0% coverage. However, it doesn't explain what a 'snippet_id' is (e.g., format, where to find it) or how the optional workspace interacts with configuration, leaving gaps in understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the action ('Delete') and resource ('a snippet'), which is clear but basic. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_branch', 'delete_repository', or 'delete_tag', which all follow the same pattern. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity about what makes deleting a snippet unique in this context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing snippet permissions), when deletion is appropriate, or how it relates to other tools like 'get_snippet' or 'list_snippets'. The description only states what it does, not when to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 the action but doesn't describe what 'request changes' entails behaviorally—does it block merging, send notifications, require specific permissions, or have side effects? The return statement mentions 'confirmation or error message' but gives no details on format or content. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
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's concise at three sentences with no redundant information. However, the 'Args' and 'Returns' sections are under-specified rather than overly verbose, which is a content issue rather than a structural one.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with 3 parameters (0% schema coverage), no annotations, and an output schema (though not provided in detail), the description is incomplete. It lacks critical context: what 'request changes' does in Bitbucket's workflow, permission requirements, error conditions, and detailed parameter semantics. The presence of an output schema might cover return values, but the description doesn't compensate for the missing behavioral and parametric context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description lists parameters in an 'Args' section but only gives minimal labels (e.g., 'Repository slug (name)') without explaining what a 'slug' is, how to find the 'pr_id', or when 'workspace' is needed. It doesn't clarify if 'workspace' is the user's default or must match the repository's workspace, leaving key semantic gaps despite naming the parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Request changes') and target resource ('on a Pull Request on Bitbucket Cloud'), which is specific and unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'decline_pull_request' or 'add_pull_request_comment', but the verb 'request changes' is distinct enough to imply a specific review action rather than general commenting or rejection.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 'add_pull_request_comment', 'approve_pull_request', or 'decline_pull_request'. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., reviewer status), typical workflow context, or what constitutes 'requesting changes' versus other review actions. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 states it's a read operation ('Get'), but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'details' include. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps, though it correctly indicates a read operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured and concise, with a clear purpose statement followed by separate Args and Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place, and there's no redundant information. It could be slightly more front-loaded with key details, but overall it's efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that there's an output schema (implied by 'Returns: Project details'), the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and 2 parameters, the description provides basic purpose and structure but lacks depth on usage, parameters, and behavior. It's minimally adequate but has clear gaps for effective tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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 lists parameters in an 'Args' section, naming 'project_key' and 'workspace', but provides no semantic context—what a 'project key' is, how to find it, or what the 'workspace' parameter means. The description adds parameter names but minimal meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get details of a specific project' with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('project'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'list_projects' by focusing on a single project rather than listing multiple. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'create_project' or other project-related tools, keeping it at a 4 rather than a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 when to use 'get_project' versus 'list_projects' or other project-related operations, nor does it discuss prerequisites or context for usage. The optional workspace parameter hint is minimal and doesn't constitute meaningful usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 states the action ('Add a comment') but doesn't mention permissions required, rate limits, whether the comment is editable/deletable, or how it interacts with pull request workflows. The mention of markdown support is a useful detail, but overall, critical behavioral context is missing 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by parameter explanations and return info. It uses bullet-like formatting for clarity. While efficient, the 'Returns' section could be more specific, but overall, it's concise with minimal waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and an output schema present, the description does an adequate job. It explains parameters and hints at returns, but as a mutation tool, it lacks details on permissions, side effects, or error handling. The output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but behavioral gaps remain.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 meaning by explaining each parameter's purpose (e.g., 'Repository slug (name)', 'Comment text (supports markdown)') and notes workspace is optional if configured. However, it doesn't clarify formats (e.g., what a 'slug' is) or constraints, leaving gaps despite covering all parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Add a comment') and target resource ('to a Pull Request on Bitbucket Cloud'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'add_inline_comment' and 'add_issue_comment' by specifying it's for pull requests. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with these similar tools, keeping it from 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 'add_inline_comment' or 'reply_to_comment'. It mentions the workspace parameter is optional 'if configured', which hints at a prerequisite but doesn't explain configuration or usage contexts. There's no explicit when/when-not advice or comparison to sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 it states the action ('Approve'), it doesn't explain what approval means in Bitbucket's workflow (e.g., whether it's a final approval, if it affects mergeability, or if it's reversible). It also doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or error conditions beyond a generic 'error message' reference.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with clear sections (purpose, Args, Returns) and uses minimal sentences. However, the 'Args' and 'Returns' sections could be more integrated into the flow rather than separate bullet points, and some phrasing ('optional if configured') is slightly ambiguous, preventing a perfect score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (approval action with 3 parameters), no annotations, and an output schema present, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action and parameters but lacks details on behavioral implications, error handling, and sibling differentiation. The output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but more context is needed for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description includes an 'Args' section that lists parameters with brief explanations, adding value beyond the 0% schema description coverage. However, the explanations are minimal ('Repository slug (name)', 'Pull Request ID to approve') and don't provide format examples, constraints, or how 'workspace' interacts with configuration. This partially compensates for the schema gap but leaves important details unclear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Approve') and resource ('a Pull Request on Bitbucket Cloud'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'unapprove_pull_request' or 'decline_pull_request', which would require more specific language about what approval entails versus those alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 'decline_pull_request', 'request_changes_pull_request', or 'unapprove_pull_request'. It also doesn't mention prerequisites such as required permissions or workflow context, leaving the agent without usage context beyond the basic action.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool creates a branch and returns details or an error, but lacks critical information such as required permissions, whether it's idempotent, potential side effects (e.g., branch naming conflicts), or rate limits. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with clear sections (purpose, args, returns) and uses bullet points for readability. It's front-loaded with the main purpose, and each sentence adds value without redundancy. A slight improvement could be merging the args list into a more concise narrative, but overall it's efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a mutation with 4 parameters), no annotations, and an output schema present (which handles return values), the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral details like error conditions or usage context. This is the minimum viable for such a tool, with clear room for enhancement.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 lists all four parameters with brief explanations (e.g., 'target' as 'Commit hash, branch name, or tag to branch from'), which adds meaningful context beyond the schema's type definitions. However, it doesn't cover constraints like format requirements or examples, leaving some gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create a new branch') and resource ('in a repository'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_tag' or 'fork_repository', which also create things in repositories, so it misses the top score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. For example, it doesn't mention when to use 'create_branch' compared to 'create_pull_request' or 'fork_repository', nor does it specify prerequisites like repository access or authentication needs. This leaves the agent with minimal context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 states the tool creates a snippet and mentions a return value, but fails to describe critical behaviors like required permissions, error handling, side effects, or rate limits. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is structured with clear sections (Args, Returns) but includes redundant phrasing ('Create a new snippet' followed by parameter details). The 'Args' and 'Returns' labels are helpful, but the content could be more front-loaded and concise, with some sentences not adding significant value beyond listing parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 5 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description partially compensates by listing parameters and noting an output schema exists. However, for a mutation tool, it lacks details on permissions, errors, or behavioral context, making it incomplete despite the output schema covering return values.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 lists all 5 parameters with brief explanations (e.g., 'Snippet title', 'Filename for the snippet content'), adding basic semantics beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't elaborate on constraints, formats, or interactions between parameters, leaving gaps in understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create a new snippet') and identifies the resource ('snippet'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'create_repository' or 'create_issue' beyond the resource type, missing explicit sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., authentication), use cases, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'list_snippets' or 'delete_snippet', leaving the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 this is a creation operation but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether it's idempotent, what happens if a tag with the same name exists, rate limits, or authentication needs. The mention of 'error message' in returns hints at potential failures but lacks specifics.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns) and uses bullet points for readability. It's appropriately sized for a 4-parameter tool, with no redundant information. However, the 'Returns' section could be more concise by leveraging the output schema.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (creation tool with 4 parameters), no annotations, and an output schema present, the description is moderately complete. It covers basic purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral context (permissions, idempotency) and usage guidelines. The output schema reduces the need to detail return values, but the description still misses key operational insights.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 lists all 4 parameters with brief explanations (e.g., 'Repository slug (name)', 'Commit hash to tag'), adding meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't provide format details (e.g., slug conventions, hash length), validation rules, or examples, leaving gaps in understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create a new tag') and resource ('in a repository'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'delete_tag' and 'list_tags' by specifying creation rather than deletion or listing. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other creation tools like 'create_branch' or 'create_issue' beyond the resource type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 (e.g., needing repository access), when not to use it (e.g., if a tag already exists), or comparisons to similar tools like 'create_branch' or 'create_issue'. The optional workspace parameter is noted but without context on when it's needed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 mentions the tool deletes a branch but lacks critical details such as permissions required, whether the deletion is permanent or reversible, or any side effects (e.g., impact on open pull requests). This is inadequate for a destructive operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with clear sections for purpose, arguments, and returns, making it easy to scan. It is concise with no unnecessary information, though the 'Args' and 'Returns' labels could be more integrated into the flow.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's destructive nature, lack of annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete—it misses behavioral details like safety warnings or error handling. However, the presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, and the parameter descriptions partially compensate for schema gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description includes an 'Args' section that names and briefly describes the three parameters, adding value beyond the schema (which has 0% description coverage). However, it does not provide detailed semantics like format examples or constraints, leaving gaps in understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and resource ('a branch from a repository'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_repository' or 'delete_tag', which would require a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other deletion tools like 'delete_repository' or 'delete_tag'), nor does it mention prerequisites or conditions for use. The description only states what it does without context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 the action ('Delete') which implies a destructive mutation, but doesn't clarify if this is reversible, what permissions are required, or any rate limits. The 'Returns' section mentions a confirmation or error message, but doesn't describe the format or common error scenarios. This leaves significant gaps for a destructive operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with clear sections (purpose, Args, Returns) and uses minimal sentences. Each section serves a purpose, though the 'Returns' line could be more specific. There's no redundant information, making it efficient while covering the basics.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a destructive tool with no annotations, 4 parameters (3 required), 0% schema description coverage, but with an output schema, the description does an adequate job. It explains what the tool does and documents parameters, but lacks important behavioral context (permissions, irreversibility) and doesn't leverage the output schema to describe return values more specifically. The presence of an output schema reduces the burden slightly, but not enough for a higher score.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description includes an 'Args' section that lists all 4 parameters with brief explanations, adding meaning beyond the 0% schema description coverage. It clarifies that 'workspace' is optional if configured, which is helpful context. However, it doesn't provide format details (e.g., what a 'repository slug' looks like) or constraints beyond what's implied by the schema types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and target ('a comment from a Pull Request'), which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'delete_branch' or 'delete_repository' by specifying the resource type. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other comment-related tools like 'reply_to_comment' in terms of purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 prerequisites (e.g., needing appropriate permissions), when deletion is appropriate (e.g., for cleanup vs. moderation), or what happens after deletion (e.g., irreversibility). There's no comparison to sibling tools like 'delete_repository' or context about Bitbucket workflows.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 states the action ('Fork a repository') but doesn't describe what forking entails (creates a copy, maintains link to original), permission requirements, rate limits, or what happens if the repository already exists. The mention of 'Returns: Forked repository details or error message' adds minimal behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. The Args/Returns structure is clear, though slightly redundant with schema. Every sentence earns its place, but the 'Returns' line could be more informative given the output schema exists.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description provides basic parameter semantics but lacks behavioral context for a mutation operation. The existence of an output schema means return values don't need explanation, but the description should do more to explain the fork operation's implications, permissions, and error conditions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 basic semantic meaning for all three parameters: 'repo_slug' as the repository to fork, 'new_name' as optional name for the fork, and 'workspace' as optional Bitbucket workspace. However, it doesn't explain format requirements (e.g., slug conventions), default behaviors beyond 'new_name', or when workspace is required versus optional.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Fork a repository') with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'create_repository' or 'list_repository_forks' by focusing on the fork operation. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with these siblings in the description text itself.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 prerequisites (like authentication or permissions), when forking is appropriate versus creating a new repository, or how it differs from 'list_repository_forks'. The agent must infer usage context from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 it 'Get details' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if it requires specific permissions, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the issue doesn't exist. The 'Returns' section mentions output fields but lacks depth on format or pagination.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the main purpose in the first sentence. The 'Args' and 'Returns' sections are structured for clarity, though the 'Returns' section could be more concise by listing fewer examples or integrating with the output schema. No wasted sentences, but minor verbosity in the returns list.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema (which reduces the need to explain return values in the description) and no annotations, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral details like error handling or usage context. For a simple read operation, this is adequate but has clear gaps in guidelines and transparency.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description adds value by explaining 'repo_slug' as 'Repository slug (name)', 'issue_id' as 'Issue ID', and 'workspace' as 'Bitbucket workspace (optional if configured)', which clarifies their roles. However, it doesn't fully compensate for the coverage gap by detailing formats (e.g., slug conventions) or when 'workspace' is required.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose as 'Get details of a specific issue' with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('issue'), making it easy to understand. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_issues' or 'get_issue_comments', which would require mentioning it retrieves a single issue by ID rather than listing multiple issues or getting comments.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 'list_issues' for browsing issues or 'update_issue' for modifying issues, nor does it specify prerequisites such as authentication or repository access. The optional 'workspace' parameter is noted but without context on when it's needed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 states this is a 'Get' operation which implies read-only behavior, but doesn't confirm this explicitly. No information about authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens when parameters are invalid. The description mentions returns 'Step log content' but doesn't describe format, size limits, or potential truncation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured and appropriately sized. The purpose is stated clearly in the first sentence, followed by organized Args and Returns sections. No wasted words or redundant information. While efficient, the Args section could be slightly more detailed given the 0% schema coverage.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema (which handles return value documentation) but no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description does an adequate but minimal job. It explains what the tool does and what parameters mean, but lacks behavioral context that would be important for a read operation in a CI/CD context. The presence of an output schema reduces the burden, but more operational guidance would be helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description adds basic semantic context for all 4 parameters, explaining what each represents (repository slug, pipeline UUID, step UUID, workspace). However, it doesn't provide format details, examples, or constraints beyond noting workspace is 'optional if configured'. The parameter explanations are minimal but cover all parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
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 'Get the log output for a pipeline step' - a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('log output for a pipeline step'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_pipeline' or 'list_pipeline_steps' by focusing specifically on log retrieval rather than metadata. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential similar tools not in the sibling list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. While siblings include 'get_pipeline' and 'list_pipeline_steps', there's no indication of how this tool relates to them or when an agent should choose log retrieval over general pipeline/step information. The optional workspace parameter gets minimal explanation ('optional if configured'), but no broader usage context is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states this is a 'Get' operation, implying it's read-only, but doesn't disclose other behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or pagination. The description is minimal and doesn't provide enough context for safe and effective use.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
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 the first sentence, followed by clear 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. There's minimal waste, though it could be slightly more concise by integrating the parameter descriptions into the main text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is partially complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines. The output schema exists, so the description doesn't need to detail return values, but other gaps remain.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description includes an 'Args' section that names and briefly describes the three parameters, adding meaning beyond the input schema (which has 0% description coverage). However, it doesn't explain parameter formats (e.g., what a 'repo_slug' looks like), constraints, or examples. With low schema coverage, this provides basic but incomplete compensation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get a summary of files changed in a Pull Request with line counts.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('files changed in a Pull Request'), and output type ('summary...with line counts'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_pull_request_diff' or 'get_commit_diffstat', which reduces it from 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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_pull_request_diff' (which might provide full diff content) or 'get_commit_diffstat' (which might be for commits rather than PRs). There's no context about prerequisites, timing, or exclusions for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 states this is a read operation ('Get details'), which implies it's non-destructive, but doesn't cover authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what happens if the snippet doesn't exist. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. The Args and Returns sections are structured clearly, though the 'Returns' part could be more specific (e.g., listing key metadata fields). There's minimal waste, but slight room for improvement in detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is somewhat complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters, and the output schema handles return values, so it doesn't need to explain those. However, it lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines, making it adequate but with clear gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 meaning by explaining that 'snippet_id' identifies the snippet and 'workspace' is optional if configured, which clarifies beyond the schema's basic types. However, it doesn't detail format constraints (e.g., ID structure) or provide examples, leaving some ambiguity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get details of a specific snippet.' This is a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('snippet'), making it easy to understand. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_snippets' or 'create_snippet,' which would require a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 'list_snippets' for browsing snippets or 'create_snippet' for creating new ones, nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 states the tool retrieves 'public profile information,' which implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, but it doesn't clarify authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what specific fields are included in the profile. For a tool with no annotation coverage, 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured, using a clear purpose statement followed by brief sections for 'Args' and 'Returns.' Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It could be slightly more front-loaded by integrating the parameter explanation into the main description, but overall it's efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameter semantics but lacks usage guidelines and detailed behavioral context. With no annotations, it should provide more guidance on authentication or error handling to be fully adequate for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds minimal semantics beyond the input schema. It explains that the 'username' parameter can be a 'Bitbucket username or UUID,' which provides context not in the schema (which has 0% description coverage). However, it doesn't detail format constraints, examples, or how to handle invalid inputs. With one parameter and low schema coverage, the description compensates slightly but not fully, aligning with the baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get a user's public profile information.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('user's public profile information'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_current_user' or 'get_user_permissions', 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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_current_user' (which might retrieve the authenticated user's profile) or 'get_user_permissions' (which focuses on permissions rather than profile details). Without this context, an agent might struggle to choose the right tool in a given scenario.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool performs a write operation ('Reply'), implying mutation, but doesn't cover permissions needed, rate limits, side effects (e.g., notifications), or error handling. The mention of 'Returns: Reply details or error message' adds some context but is vague. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by parameter and return details. It uses bullet-like formatting for clarity. However, the 'Returns' section is somewhat redundant given the output schema, and some sentences could be more precise (e.g., 'optional if configured' is ambiguous).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
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 5 parameters), no annotations, and an output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral details (e.g., auth, side effects) and usage context. The output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but overall completeness is adequate with clear gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 lists all 5 parameters with brief explanations (e.g., 'Reply text (supports markdown)'), which adds meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't provide format details (e.g., markdown specifics), validation rules, or examples. This partially compensates but leaves gaps, warranting an average score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Reply to a specific comment on a Pull Request.' It specifies the action (reply) and target resource (comment on a Pull Request). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'add_pull_request_comment' or 'add_issue_comment', which would require a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 when to choose this over 'add_pull_request_comment' or 'add_issue_comment', nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. While it mentions pagination behavior ('page' and 'pagelen' parameters with defaults), it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, what authentication is required, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'List of commits with their details' actually includes. The description provides minimal behavioral context beyond parameter listing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description uses a clear three-part structure (purpose, Args, Returns) but includes some redundancy. The 'Args:' and 'Returns:' labels are helpful, but the parameter explanations could be more concise. The structure is functional but not optimally efficient, with room for tighter phrasing while maintaining clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (7 parameters, no annotations, but has output schema), the description covers parameter semantics well but lacks behavioral context. The existence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to detail return values, but it should provide more guidance on usage context, authentication, and error handling for a complete picture.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining all 7 parameters in the Args section, including their purposes, optionality, and default values. It clarifies that 'repo_slug' is the repository name, 'branch' filters commits, 'include/exclude' filter by commit hash, 'workspace' identifies the Bitbucket workspace, and 'page/pagelen' control pagination with specific constraints (max 100).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose as 'List commits in a repository' with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('commits'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_commit' (singular) or 'list_commit_statuses', which would require more specific scope clarification.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. With many sibling tools available (like 'get_commit' for single commits or 'list_pull_request_commits' for PR-specific commits), there's no indication of when this general listing tool is preferred over more specific alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 states this is a list operation (implying read-only) and mentions the return format ('List of pipeline steps with their details'), but doesn't cover important behaviors like pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or whether the list is filtered/sorted. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is reasonably concise with clear sections (purpose, args, returns). However, the 'Args:' and 'Returns:' sections are somewhat redundant since the schema and output schema exist. The description could be more front-loaded by integrating parameter explanations into a single flowing paragraph rather than separate labeled sections.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that an output schema exists (so return values are documented elsewhere), the description provides adequate context for a read operation. It explains all parameters despite 0% schema coverage and states the return type. However, for a tool with no annotations, it should provide more behavioral context about pagination, permissions, or error handling to be fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation. The description provides clear explanations for all three parameters: 'repo_slug: Repository slug (name)', 'pipeline_uuid: Pipeline UUID (with or without braces)', and 'workspace: Bitbucket workspace (optional if configured)'. This adds substantial value beyond the bare schema, though it could provide more context about format expectations or examples.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('steps in a pipeline'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_pipelines' (which lists pipelines) and 'get_pipeline' (which gets pipeline details). However, it doesn't specify whether this lists all steps or filtered steps, 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 when this tool is appropriate compared to 'get_pipeline' (which might include steps) or 'get_pipeline_step_log' (which gets step details). The optional workspace parameter has minimal explanation ('optional if configured'), but this doesn't constitute meaningful usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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.
Conciseness3/5
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.
Completeness3/5
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.
Parameters4/5
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.
Purpose4/5
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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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.
Behavior2/5
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.
Conciseness3/5
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.
Completeness3/5
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.
Parameters4/5
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.
Purpose4/5
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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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.
Behavior2/5
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 ('Add') but lacks behavioral details such as required permissions, whether comments are editable/deletable, rate limits, or error handling. The description mentions 'Returns: Comment details or error message', which hints at output but is vague.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
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's front-loaded and efficient, though the 'Returns' line could be more specific (e.g., describing 'Comment details' further).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 6 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description partially compensates by explaining parameters and hinting at output. However, as a mutation tool (adding comments), it lacks details on permissions, side effects, and error cases. An output schema exists, so return values needn't be fully described, but behavioral gaps remain.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
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 lists all 6 parameters with brief explanations (e.g., 'Comment text (supports markdown)', 'optional if configured'), adding meaningful context beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't detail formats (e.g., for 'repo_slug') or constraints (e.g., valid 'line' ranges).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Add an inline comment') and target ('on a specific line of code in a Pull Request'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'add_pull_request_comment' (likely general PR comments) and 'add_issue_comment'. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with these siblings in the description text itself.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 'add_pull_request_comment' or 'add_issue_comment'. It mentions the tool's function but offers no context about prerequisites, appropriate scenarios, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 states this is a creation operation but doesn't mention permission requirements, whether the variable is immediately available for pipelines, if there are rate limits, or what happens on duplicate keys. The return statement mentions 'Created variable details or error message' but lacks specifics about format or error conditions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by organized Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value, though the 'Returns' section could be slightly more specific about what 'details' includes. No redundant information is present.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a creation tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, but an output schema present, the description does reasonably well. It covers parameter semantics thoroughly and mentions return values generally. However, it lacks important behavioral context about permissions, idempotency, and error handling that would be needed for safe operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description provides clear semantic explanations for all 5 parameters beyond the 0% schema description coverage. It explains what 'repo_slug', 'key', 'value', and 'secured' mean, notes defaults for 'secured' and 'workspace', and clarifies that 'workspace' is optional if configured. This effectively compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create a pipeline variable') and resource ('for a repository'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_pipeline_variables' or explain how this creation differs from other variable-related operations that might exist.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 prerequisites (e.g., needing repository access), compare with sibling tools like 'list_pipeline_variables', or specify scenarios where creating a pipeline variable is appropriate versus other configuration methods.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 states this is a creation operation but doesn't mention required permissions, whether the project key must be globally unique, what happens on duplicate keys, rate limits, or authentication requirements. The 'Returns' section mentions error messages but doesn't describe 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value, though the 'Returns' line could be more specific about what 'Created project details' includes. The formatting helps readability without unnecessary verbosity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a creation tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values), the description is moderately complete. It covers parameter semantics well but lacks behavioral context like permissions, error handling details, and sibling tool differentiation that would make it fully comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining all 5 parameters: it clarifies that 'key' must be uppercase letters and numbers, 'description' is optional, 'is_private' defaults to True, and 'workspace' is optional if configured. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't specify length limits or validation rules for 'name' and 'key'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Create') and resource ('new project in a workspace'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_repository' or 'create_snippet' beyond the resource type, 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 'list_projects'. It mentions that 'workspace' is optional if configured, which is a minor usage hint, but lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or sibling tool comparisons.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 states the action is 'Delete' which implies a destructive mutation, but doesn't clarify if this is permanent, requires specific permissions, or has side effects. The mention of 'Confirmation or error message' in returns adds minimal context about response format.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by organized Args and Returns sections. Every sentence serves a purpose, though the returns statement could be slightly more specific about what 'Confirmation' entails.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and an output schema exists, the description is moderately complete. It covers parameters well and mentions return types, but lacks important context about permissions, irreversibility, and relationship to sibling tools like 'list_webhooks' that would typically precede this operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining all three parameters: 'repo_slug' as repository name, 'webhook_uid' as UUID format with brace details, and 'workspace' as optional Bitbucket workspace. This adds crucial semantic meaning beyond the bare schema types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and resource ('a webhook from a repository'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_repository' or 'delete_tag' beyond the resource type, 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 'list_webhooks' for checking existing webhooks or 'create_webhook' for creating them. It also doesn't mention prerequisites such as needing the webhook UUID from a list operation first.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool checks configuration status and returns workspace info, but lacks details on what 'configured' means (e.g., authentication, permissions), whether it's a read-only operation (implied but not explicit), error handling, or performance aspects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded, with the core purpose in the first sentence and return details in the second. Both sentences are relevant, though the second could be integrated more smoothly. There's no wasted verbiage, making it efficient for agent comprehension.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, output schema provided), the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It covers the basic action and return value, but lacks usage context and behavioral details. With an output schema, it doesn't need to explain return values, but should address when and why to use this tool, especially relative to siblings like 'setup_bitbucket'.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate. A baseline of 4 is applied since the schema fully handles parameters, and the description doesn't need to compensate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Check if Bitbucket is configured and return current status.' It uses specific verbs ('check', 'return') and identifies the resource (Bitbucket configuration). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_workspace_details' or 'setup_bitbucket', which might have overlapping concerns with configuration status.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 prerequisites (e.g., whether Bitbucket must be set up first), compare to siblings like 'setup_bitbucket' (for configuration) or 'get_workspace_details' (for workspace info), or specify use cases (e.g., diagnostic checks). This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. While 'Get details' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the pipeline doesn't exist. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured and appropriately sized. It front-loads the purpose, then lists parameters with brief explanations, and ends with return details. Each sentence adds value, though the parameter explanations could be slightly more concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, 2 required) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return value documentation), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose, parameters, and return scope, though it lacks behavioral details and usage guidelines that would be helpful for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description provides semantic explanations for all three parameters: 'repo_slug: Repository slug (name)', 'pipeline_uuid: Pipeline UUID (with or without braces)', and 'workspace: Bitbucket workspace (optional if configured)'. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't fully compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get details of a specific pipeline.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('pipeline'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_pipelines' or 'get_pipeline_step_log'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 'list_pipelines' for listing multiple pipelines or 'get_pipeline_step_log' for step-specific details, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 states the tool retrieves details but does not describe authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or whether it's a read-only operation (implied by 'Get' but not explicit). The mention of returned information is basic and lacks depth on format or completeness.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by parameter and return details. It uses bullet-like sections ('Args:', 'Returns:') for clarity. However, the 'Returns' section could be more concise by integrating with the purpose statement, and some redundancy exists (e.g., repeating 'Pull Request').
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers purpose and parameters but lacks usage guidelines, behavioral details, and error handling. The output schema existence reduces the need to detail return values, but the description should still address when and how to use the tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
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: 'repo_slug' is clarified as 'Repository slug (name)', 'pr_id' as 'Pull Request ID', and 'workspace' as 'Bitbucket workspace (optional if configured)'. This provides essential context beyond the bare schema types, though it could elaborate on format expectations (e.g., slug conventions).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get details of a specific Pull Request on Bitbucket Cloud.' It specifies the verb ('Get details'), resource ('Pull Request'), and platform ('Bitbucket Cloud'), making the intent unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_pull_request_activity' or 'get_pull_request_comments', which target specific aspects of pull requests rather than general details.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 does not mention sibling tools like 'list_pull_requests' for listing PRs or 'get_pull_request_activity' for activity logs, nor does it specify prerequisites such as authentication or workspace configuration. The optional 'workspace' parameter hint is minimal and lacks context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 parameters ('page', 'pagelen') and returns a list, but doesn't describe authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what specific event types are included beyond 'comments, approvals, and updates'. For a read operation with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured and appropriately sized. The first sentence clearly states the purpose, followed by a parameter breakdown and return statement. Each sentence earns its place, though the 'Args:' and 'Returns:' formatting could be more integrated with the main description text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (5 parameters, 2 required), 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, but with an output schema (implied by 'Returns: List of activity events'), the description is partially complete. It covers parameters well but lacks behavioral context and usage guidance. The output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but more context on authentication, errors, and sibling differentiation would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
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 explanations for all 5 parameters: 'repo_slug: Repository slug (name)', 'pr_id: Pull Request ID', 'workspace: Bitbucket workspace (optional if configured)', 'page: Page number for pagination (default: 1)', 'pagelen: Number of results per page, max 100 (default: 50)'. This adds substantial value beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't explain format constraints (e.g., what constitutes a valid 'repo_slug').
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get the activity/timeline of a Pull Request including comments, approvals, and updates.' This specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('activity/timeline of a Pull Request'), and scope ('comments, approvals, and updates'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_pull_request_comments' or 'get_pull_request', which might overlap in functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. With sibling tools like 'get_pull_request_comments' and 'get_pull_request' available, there's no indication of how this tool differs or when it's preferred. The description only states what it does, not when to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 defaults and limits ('max 100'), which is useful, but lacks critical details: authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling (e.g., invalid PR IDs), or whether it's a read-only operation (implied by 'Get' but not explicit). 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by organized sections for Args and Returns. Each sentence adds value: the first states the action, and the parameter explanations are necessary given low schema coverage. It avoids redundancy but could be slightly more concise by integrating pagination details into the main flow.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and an output schema present, the description does an adequate job. It covers parameters well and hints at returns ('List of comments with details'), but lacks full behavioral context (e.g., auth, errors). The output schema likely defines the return structure, so the description doesn't need to detail it further, but overall completeness is moderate due to missing operational guidelines.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
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 context for all 5 parameters: explains 'repo_slug' as 'Repository slug (name)', 'pr_id' as 'Pull Request ID', clarifies 'workspace' as optional with a default, and details pagination behavior ('page' and 'pagelen' with defaults and max). This goes beyond the bare schema, providing practical usage insights, though it could note format specifics (e.g., numeric PR IDs).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('comments from a Pull Request on Bitbucket Cloud'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_pull_request' (which retrieves PR metadata) and 'list_commit_comments' (which targets commits rather than PRs), though it doesn't explicitly name these alternatives. The specificity is good but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid PR ID), contrast with similar tools like 'get_pull_request_activity' (which might include comments), or specify use cases (e.g., reviewing feedback). The description assumes the user knows when to fetch PR comments without offering context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. While it mentions pagination parameters (page, pagelen), it doesn't describe authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens when the PR doesn't exist. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and well-structured with clear sections (purpose, Args, Returns). Each sentence earns its place, though the 'Returns' section is somewhat redundant given the purpose statement. The information is front-loaded with the core purpose first.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that there's an output schema (though not shown here), the description doesn't need to detail return values. However, for a tool with 5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description should provide more behavioral context about authentication, error handling, and usage scenarios to be fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by documenting all 5 parameters in the 'Args' section, explaining their purposes and defaults. It clarifies that 'workspace' is optional if configured, and specifies constraints like 'max 100' for pagelen. This adds substantial value beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get the list of commits in a Pull Request.' This is a specific verb ('Get') + resource ('commits in a Pull Request') combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_commit' or 'list_commits', which work on repositories rather than pull requests specifically.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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_pull_request_diff' or 'get_pull_request_activity' that might provide related information, nor does it specify prerequisites or contextual constraints for using this tool effectively.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 mentions pagination and filtering, which is useful, but fails to cover critical aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or whether it's a read-only operation. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by structured parameter and return details. Every sentence adds value, such as clarifying defaults and limits, making it efficient without unnecessary verbosity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity, 5 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema present, the description is partially complete. It covers parameters well but lacks behavioral context like safety or performance traits. The output schema handles return values, so the description need not explain them, but overall completeness is adequate with clear gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains each parameter's purpose, such as 'repo_slug' as the repository name, 'workspace' as optional, and 'query' for filtering branches by name. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it could detail format constraints like slug patterns.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose as 'List branches in a repository,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_commits' or 'list_tags,' which are also list operations on repository resources, so it misses full sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 lacks context on prerequisites, such as needing repository access, and does not mention sibling tools like 'list_tags' or 'list_commits' for different listing purposes, leaving the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 mentions pagination behavior (page and pagelen parameters with defaults), which is useful, but lacks details on authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what 'List of comments' entails structurally. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured and appropriately sized. It starts with a clear purpose statement, followed by a parameter breakdown and return information. Each sentence adds value, with no redundant or vague phrasing. Minor improvements could include bolding or bullet points, but it's efficient overall.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (5 parameters, 2 required) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers parameters well but lacks behavioral context like authentication or error handling. With no annotations and an output schema, it meets minimum viability but isn't fully comprehensive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds substantial value beyond the input schema, which has 0% schema description coverage. It explains each parameter's purpose (e.g., 'Repository slug (name)', 'The commit hash', 'Bitbucket workspace (optional if configured)'), including defaults and constraints like 'max 100' for pagelen. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List comments on a specific commit.' It specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('comments on a specific commit'), making the action clear. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_issue_comments' or 'get_pull_request_comments' beyond the commit focus, 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 'list_issue_comments' or 'get_pull_request_comments' for comparison, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. The usage context 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.
Behavior2/5
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 mentions pagination defaults and limits (page, pagelen with max 100), which is useful. However, it doesn't describe authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens when workspace is null. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns) and front-loaded purpose. Each sentence adds value, though the 'Returns' section is somewhat redundant given the existence of an output schema. The description could be slightly more concise by omitting the obvious return statement.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description does a reasonable job explaining parameters but lacks behavioral context. The existence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to detail return values. However, for a listing tool with pagination and filtering, more guidance on usage patterns and limitations would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
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 successfully explains all 4 parameters: workspace (optional if configured), page (default and purpose), pagelen (default, max, and purpose), and query (purpose). This adds substantial value beyond the bare schema, though it could provide more detail about workspace configuration or query syntax to reach a perfect score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List repositories') and target ('in a Bitbucket workspace'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'list_repository_forks' or 'list_workspaces', which would require explicit comparison to achieve a score of 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. While it mentions the 'query' parameter for filtering by name, it doesn't explain when to use this versus other listing tools like 'list_repository_forks' or 'list_projects'. There's no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions authentication ('authenticated user') and the return type ('List of workspaces with their details'), but lacks details on pagination, rate limits, error handling, or what specific details are included. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded, with the core purpose in the first sentence and additional return information in the second. Both sentences add value: the first defines the action, and the second clarifies the output. There's no wasted verbiage, though minor improvements in structure (e.g., merging sentences) could push it to 5.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, read-only operation) and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and output, but lacks behavioral details (e.g., pagination, authentication scope) that would be helpful despite the output schema. With no annotations, it should provide more context for a complete understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's purpose and output. A baseline of 4 is applied since it avoids unnecessary parameter details for a parameterless tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List all workspaces the authenticated user has access to.' It specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('workspaces'), and distinguishes from siblings like 'get_workspace_details' by indicating it returns multiple workspaces rather than details of one. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools (e.g., 'list_repositories'), keeping it at 4 rather than 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 when to prefer 'list_workspaces' over 'get_workspace_details' or other list tools, nor does it specify any prerequisites or exclusions. This lack of contextual guidance limits its utility for an AI agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 behavior ('page' and 'pagelen' parameters) and that 'workspace' is optional if configured, which adds some context. However, it doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or whether this is a read-only operation (implied but not stated). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured and appropriately sized. It starts with a clear purpose statement, followed by organized sections for 'Args' and 'Returns'. Each sentence adds value, with no wasted words. However, the 'Args' section could be slightly more concise by integrating defaults into the descriptions more seamlessly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (list operation with pagination), no annotations, and an output schema present (which handles return values), the description is moderately complete. It covers parameters well but lacks behavioral details like authentication or error handling. The output schema reduces the need to explain returns, but the description should still address more operational context for a tool with no annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics for all three parameters: 'workspace' is described as 'Bitbucket workspace (optional if configured)', 'page' as 'Page number for pagination (default: 1)', and 'pagelen' as 'Number of results per page, max 100 (default: 25)'. This provides clear context beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't fully explain the 'configured' aspect for 'workspace'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List webhooks configured for a workspace.' It specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('webhooks configured for a workspace'), making it easy to understand. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'list_webhooks' (which likely lists repository webhooks), so it doesn't reach 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 'list_webhooks' (for repositories) or 'create_webhook', nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts for usage. The only implied usage is from the purpose statement, but no explicit guidelines are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 'stops' a pipeline (implying a destructive/mutative action) but doesn't describe permissions needed, whether the stop is reversible, rate limits, or what happens to pipeline resources. The return statement is vague ('Confirmation or error message').
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by Args/Returns sections. Each sentence earns its place, though the return statement could be more specific. The formatting helps with readability.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive operation with no annotations, the description is moderately complete: it explains parameters well and mentions output (though vaguely). However, it lacks critical behavioral context about permissions, reversibility, and side effects that would be important for a 'stop' action.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides meaningful parameter explanations beyond the bare schema: it clarifies what 'repo_slug' and 'pipeline_uuid' represent, notes the UUID format flexibility, and explains the optionality of 'workspace'. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Stop') and target ('a running pipeline'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'trigger_pipeline' or 'get_pipeline', which would be needed for 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, nor does it mention prerequisites or conditions for stopping a pipeline. It simply states what the tool does without contextual usage information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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.
Conciseness4/5
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.
Completeness3/5
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.
Parameters4/5
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.
Purpose4/5
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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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.
Behavior2/5
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 states the tool adds a comment but does not cover critical aspects like required permissions, whether the action is reversible, rate limits, or error handling beyond a vague mention of 'error message'. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior safely.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by clear sections for arguments and returns. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse for an agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
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, no annotations), the description covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral details like permissions or side effects. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but overall completeness is adequate yet with notable gaps for safe use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaningful context for parameters beyond the schema, which has 0% coverage. It clarifies that 'content' supports markdown and 'workspace' is optional if configured, providing practical usage details. However, it does not explain 'repo_slug' or 'issue_id' formats, leaving some ambiguity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Add a comment') and target resource ('to an issue'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'add_inline_comment' or 'add_pull_request_comment', which handle comments in different contexts, leaving some potential for confusion.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 'add_inline_comment' or 'add_pull_request_comment', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. It lacks context for tool selection, which could lead to misuse in a multi-tool environment.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 pagination parameters (page, pagelen) which hints at paginated results, but doesn't describe the return format beyond 'List of comments on the issue'—missing details like comment structure, error conditions, authentication requirements, or rate limits. For a read operation with 5 parameters, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a clear 'Args' and 'Returns' section. Every sentence earns its place by explaining parameters and output without redundancy. It's appropriately sized for a tool with multiple parameters, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, but has output schema), the description is partially complete. It covers parameter semantics well and notes the output is a list, but lacks behavioral context like authentication, error handling, or pagination behavior. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to detail return values, but overall gaps remain in usage guidelines and transparency.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
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 5 parameters: 'repo_slug' as repository name, 'issue_id' as Issue ID, 'workspace' as Bitbucket workspace with optionality noted, and pagination details for 'page' and 'pagelen' including defaults and max value. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't explain format specifics like slug conventions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('comments on an issue'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from other comment-related tools like 'add_issue_comment' or 'delete_comment' by focusing on retrieval rather than creation or deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'list_commit_comments' or 'get_pull_request_comments', which are similar listing operations for different resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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_issue' (which might include comments) or 'list_commit_comments' for different contexts, nor does it specify prerequisites such as needing repository access. The only implied usage is for retrieving comments, but explicit alternatives or exclusions are absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 mentions pagination behavior ('page', 'pagelen') and optional parameters, which is helpful. However, it doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or whether it's a read-only operation (though 'List' implies safety). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured and appropriately sized. It front-loads the purpose, then details args and returns in clear sections. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy. It could be slightly more concise by integrating the args into the main flow, but it's efficient overall.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
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 type. The output schema handles return values, so the description doesn't need to detail them. However, it lacks behavioral context like auth or errors, keeping it from a 5.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
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 for all four parameters: 'repo_slug' as repository name, 'workspace' as optional Bitbucket workspace, and pagination details with defaults and constraints ('max 100'). This goes well beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't explain format specifics (e.g., slug format).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List pipeline variables configured for a repository.' It specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('pipeline variables'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'create_pipeline_variable'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools (e.g., 'list_pipelines'), so it's not a perfect 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 prerequisites (e.g., authentication), compare it to other list tools, or specify scenarios where it's appropriate. The optional 'workspace' parameter hint is minimal context, not explicit usage guidelines.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 parameters ('page', 'pagelen') and a return type ('List of workspace permissions'), which adds some context. However, it fails to disclose critical behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured and appropriately sized, with a clear purpose statement followed by separate 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy. The front-loaded purpose statement makes the tool's intent immediately clear, enhancing usability.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose, parameters, and return value, and the output schema likely details the permission structure, reducing the need for extensive return explanations. However, it lacks behavioral context like authentication or error handling, which would be beneficial for full completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description includes an 'Args' section that documents all three parameters with brief explanations, such as 'Bitbucket workspace (optional if configured)' and pagination details. Since the schema description coverage is 0%, this adds substantial value beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't elaborate on parameter formats, constraints, or examples, keeping the semantics somewhat basic.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
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 a specific verb ('List') and resource ('permissions for a workspace'), making it immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_user_permissions' or 'list_workspace_members' by focusing specifically on workspace-level permissions. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings, such as 'get_workspace_details', which might also involve permission-related data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 any prerequisites, such as needing workspace access or authentication, or compare it to similar tools like 'get_user_permissions' for user-specific permissions. This lack of context leaves the agent to infer usage scenarios without explicit direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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.
Conciseness4/5
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.
Completeness4/5
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.
Parameters4/5
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.
Purpose4/5
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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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.
Behavior2/5
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 behavior ('page', 'pagelen') and the return format ('List of repositories and the user's permission level for each'), which adds some context. However, it lacks details on authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or whether the operation is safe (read-only) versus destructive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured and concise, with a clear purpose statement followed by organized sections for 'Args' and 'Returns'. Each sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it easy to scan and understand.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is fairly complete. It covers the purpose, parameters, and return values adequately. The output schema existence means the description doesn't need to detail return structures, but it could improve by addressing behavioral aspects like authentication or error handling.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description includes an 'Args' section that documents all three parameters (workspace, page, pagelen) with meanings and defaults, compensating for the 0% schema description coverage. It clarifies that 'workspace' is optional for filtering, 'page' defaults to 1, and 'pagelen' has a max of 100 with a default of 25, adding significant value beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get the current user's repository permissions.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('current user's repository permissions'), making the intent unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_workspace_permissions' or 'get_user_profile', which could provide overlapping functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 prerequisites, such as authentication requirements, or compare it to sibling tools like 'list_workspace_permissions' or 'get_user_profile' that might offer similar or related data. Usage context is implied but not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 states it's a read operation ('Get'), which implies non-destructive, but doesn't cover other aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'detailed information' entails. 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence clearly states the purpose, followed by structured 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. There's minimal waste, though the 'Returns' section is somewhat vague ('Workspace details') and could be more specific if not covered by an output schema.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (1 parameter, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is partially complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameter semantics adequately, but lacks behavioral details (e.g., permissions, errors). The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but overall, it could provide more context for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaningful context beyond the input schema: it explains that 'workspace' is a 'Bitbucket workspace slug' and notes it's 'optional if configured.' Since schema description coverage is 0% (the schema only defines the parameter type without descriptions), this compensates well by clarifying the parameter's purpose and default behavior, though it could specify what 'configured' means.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get detailed information about a workspace.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('workspace'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_workspaces' or 'list_workspace_members,' which would require a more specific scope statement.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides implied usage through the parameter note: 'optional if configured,' suggesting this tool is for retrieving details of a specific workspace, possibly defaulting to a configured one. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'list_workspaces' (for multiple workspaces) or other workspace-related tools, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 reveals this is a read operation (implied by 'List'), includes pagination behavior with defaults, and mentions the maximum pagelen of 100. However, it doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what happens when workspace is null. The description adds some value but leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns) and efficiently conveys essential information. The main purpose is stated upfront, followed by parameter details. While concise, it could be slightly more front-loaded by mentioning pagination in the opening sentence to better set expectations.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a read operation with an output schema (which handles return value documentation), the description is reasonably complete. It covers all parameters and basic behavior. However, for a tool with no annotations and 3 parameters, it should ideally include more about authentication, error handling, and the implications of the optional workspace parameter to be fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining all three parameters. It clarifies that 'workspace' is optional if configured, 'page' defaults to 1, and 'pagelen' defaults to 25 with a maximum of 100. This adds meaningful context beyond what the bare schema provides, though it doesn't explain the format or validation rules for the workspace parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List') and resource ('projects in a workspace'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_project' (singular) and 'list_workspaces', though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other list tools like 'list_repositories'. The description is specific but could be more distinctive among similar list operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 when this tool is appropriate compared to 'list_workspaces' or 'get_project', nor does it specify any prerequisites or context for usage. The optional workspace parameter is noted but without explanation of when it's needed versus when it can be omitted.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 mentions pagination behavior (page, pagelen with defaults and max) and that it returns a list of snippets, which is useful. However, it doesn't cover important aspects like whether this is a read-only operation (implied but not stated), authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or sorting/filtering capabilities beyond pagination.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by organized parameter and return value sections. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words. The formatting with clear sections (Args, Returns) enhances readability without being verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (list operation with pagination), no annotations, and the presence of an output schema (which covers return values), the description does a good job. It explains all parameters thoroughly and states the return type. The main gaps are lack of behavioral context (auth, errors) and usage guidance relative to siblings, but the output schema reduces the need to describe return details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
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 explanations for all three parameters: workspace (optional if configured), page (default and purpose), and pagelen (default, purpose, and max value). This adds significant value beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't explain the format of workspace values or what 'configured' means.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List') and resource ('snippets in a workspace'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_snippet' (single snippet) and 'create_snippet', but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools like 'list_repositories' or 'list_issues' beyond the resource type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to use 'list_snippets' vs 'get_snippet' (for a specific snippet) or other list tools, nor does it specify prerequisites like authentication or workspace context. The optional workspace parameter is noted but without context on when it's needed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 this is a configuration tool but doesn't disclose behavioral traits: whether this persists credentials globally/locally, if it overwrites existing configs, authentication requirements beyond the parameters, error handling, or side effects. 'Configure' implies a write operation, but details are missing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The Args and Returns sections are structured clearly. However, the 'Returns' section is vague ('Success or error message'), which slightly reduces efficiency.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (credential setup with 3 parameters), no annotations, and an output schema exists (though unspecified), the description is moderately complete. It explains parameters well but lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines. The output schema existence means return values needn't be detailed, but more operational info would help.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds substantial meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It clearly explains each parameter: workspace as 'Bitbucket workspace slug' with an example, username as 'Atlassian account email' with an example, and api_token with a source URL. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Configure Bitbucket credentials for the MCP server.' It specifies the action (configure) and resource (Bitbucket credentials), making it easy to understand. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, which are all Bitbucket operations but none appear to handle credential setup directly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 prerequisites (e.g., must be run before other Bitbucket tools), exclusions, or related tools. Given the sibling list includes many Bitbucket operations, this is a significant gap in usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 states this is a creation operation (implying mutation/write), but doesn't mention required permissions, authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or whether the operation is idempotent. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns) and uses bullet-point-like formatting. The opening sentence directly states the purpose, followed by organized parameter documentation. While slightly verbose due to listing all parameters, every sentence adds value and there's no redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, mutation operation) and lack of annotations, the description provides good parameter documentation but lacks behavioral context. The presence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to detail return values, but it should address permissions, error cases, and usage context more thoroughly for a mutation tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides significant value by documenting all 8 parameters with clear explanations. It specifies which parameters are required versus optional, provides the exact enum values for 'state', and clarifies the purpose of each parameter (e.g., 'key' as 'Unique key for this build status'). This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Create a build status') and target resource ('for a commit'), using precise terminology. It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'create_issue' or 'create_pull_request' by focusing specifically on build statuses for commits, not other Bitbucket entities.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. While sibling tools include 'list_commit_statuses' which might retrieve existing statuses, there's no explicit comparison or context about when creation versus listing is appropriate. No prerequisites, exclusions, or workflow context are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the action is a deletion but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits such as whether deletion is permanent/reversible, permission requirements, side effects, or rate limits. This is inadequate for a destructive operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by structured parameter and return sections. Every sentence earns its place, though the 'Returns' line could be more specific.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the destructive nature, lack of annotations, and an output schema (implied by 'Has output schema: true'), the description is moderately complete. It covers parameters and basic purpose but misses behavioral context and detailed usage guidelines, which are crucial for a deletion tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining all three parameters: 'repo_slug' (repository slug/name), 'name' (tag name to delete), and 'workspace' (optional Bitbucket workspace). It adds meaning beyond the bare schema, though it could detail format constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Delete a tag') and resource ('from a repository'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'create_tag' or 'list_tags'. It uses precise terminology that aligns with the tool's name without being tautological.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 'delete_branch' or 'delete_repository', nor does it mention prerequisites or context for deletion. It lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 behavior ('page', 'pagelen') and optional filtering, but does not cover critical aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or whether it's a read-only operation. For a tool with 7 parameters and 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by detailed parameter explanations in a bullet-like format. It is appropriately sized for a tool with 7 parameters, though the 'Returns' section is brief and could be more informative. Every sentence adds value, but minor improvements in flow are possible.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is largely complete. It thoroughly documents parameters and mentions pagination, but lacks behavioral details like rate limits or error cases. The output schema existence reduces the need to explain return values, but more context on usage and behavior would enhance completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds substantial value beyond the input schema, which has 0% schema description coverage. It explains each parameter's purpose, optionality, default values, and valid values (e.g., for 'state' and 'priority'). This compensates fully for the schema's lack of descriptions, making parameter meanings clear and actionable.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List issues in a repository's issue tracker.' It specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('issues'), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_issue' (which retrieves a single issue) or 'list_issue_comments' (which lists comments on issues). The purpose is clear but lacks sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 does not mention sibling tools like 'get_issue' for single issues or 'search_code' for broader searches, nor does it specify prerequisites such as repository access or authentication requirements. Usage context is implied but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 mentions pagination behavior (page/pagelen parameters) and that it returns a list of pipelines with details, which is helpful. However, it doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation (implied but not stated), rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what specific details are included in the returned list. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a clear opening sentence followed by organized sections for 'Args' and 'Returns'. It's appropriately sized with no redundant information. However, the 'Args' section could be slightly more concise by integrating some details into the opening sentence, and the 'Returns' section is somewhat vague ('with their details').
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (5 parameters, 1 required), no annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description does a good job. It thoroughly documents parameters and mentions the return type. The output schema existence means the description doesn't need to detail return values. However, it lacks context about authentication, error handling, and explicit read-only confirmation, which would make it more complete for a tool with no annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description provides excellent parameter semantics beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It clearly explains each parameter's purpose: 'repo_slug' as the repository name, 'sort' with an example ('-created_on'), 'workspace' context, and pagination details ('page' and 'pagelen' with defaults and max value). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions and adds practical usage context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('pipelines for a repository'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_pipeline' (which retrieves a single pipeline) and 'list_pipeline_steps' (which focuses on steps within a pipeline). However, it doesn't explicitly mention that this lists ALL pipelines or specify any inherent filtering beyond what parameters allow.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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_pipeline' (for single pipeline details) or 'list_pipeline_steps' (for pipeline components), nor does it specify prerequisites such as authentication or repository access requirements. The only implied context is that it operates on a repository.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 mentions pagination behavior ('page' and 'pagelen' parameters with defaults) and the return format ('List of forked repositories'), which adds useful context. However, it doesn't cover other important aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or whether this is a read-only operation (though 'List' implies it likely is).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured and appropriately sized. It starts with a clear purpose statement, followed by organized sections for 'Args' and 'Returns'. Each sentence serves a specific function without redundancy. The only minor improvement would be integrating the parameter explanations more seamlessly rather than as a separate list.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
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 the presence of an output schema (implied by 'Returns: List of forked repositories'), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose, all parameters with semantics, and the return type. However, it lacks context about authentication, error handling, or relationship to sibling tools, which prevents a perfect score.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds significant value beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains all four parameters: 'repo_slug' (Repository slug/name), 'workspace' (Bitbucket workspace with optional context), 'page' (pagination with default), and 'pagelen' (results per page with max and default). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it doesn't provide examples or format details for 'repo_slug'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List forks of a repository.' This is a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('forks of a repository'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'fork_repository' or 'list_repositories', which would be needed for 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 'fork_repository' (for creating forks) or 'list_repositories' (for listing all repositories), nor does it specify prerequisites or context for usage beyond the basic parameters.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses basic behavioral traits: it's a read operation (implied by 'List'), supports pagination and filtering via parameters, and returns a list of tag details. However, it lacks details on rate limits, error conditions, or authentication requirements, which are important for a tool with multiple parameters and no annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and well-structured: a clear purpose statement followed by a bullet-point-style breakdown of args and returns. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant information. It could be slightly more front-loaded by integrating parameter hints into the main description, but it's efficient overall.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is fairly complete. It covers the purpose, all parameters, and the return type. The output schema exists, so the description doesn't need to detail return values. However, it lacks context on authentication, error handling, or sibling tool differentiation, which holds it back from a perfect score.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains all 5 parameters: 'repo_slug' as 'Repository slug (name)', 'workspace' as optional, 'page' and 'pagelen' for pagination with defaults and max value, and 'query' for filtering by name. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it doesn't elaborate on format specifics like slug conventions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List tags in a repository.' It specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('tags in a repository'), making the action unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_tag' or 'delete_tag' beyond the obvious 'list' vs. 'create/delete' distinction, which is why it doesn't reach 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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 'list_branches' or 'list_commits' for similar listing operations, nor does it specify prerequisites such as repository access or authentication needs. The optional 'workspace' parameter hint is minimal and not framed as usage advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 it mentions the tool performs a merge operation (implying mutation), it doesn't describe important behavioral aspects: required permissions, whether the operation is reversible, potential side effects beyond merging, or error conditions. The description states it 'Returns merge result with commit details or error message' but doesn't explain what constitutes success versus failure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns) and front-loads the core purpose. Each sentence earns its place by providing necessary information. While efficient, it could be slightly more concise by integrating the parameter explanations more seamlessly rather than as a separate bullet-style list.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
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 is moderately complete. It explains parameters thoroughly but lacks behavioral context about permissions, side effects, and error conditions. The presence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to detail return values, but for a destructive operation like merging, more safety/context information would be beneficial.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining all 6 parameters in the Args section. It provides clear semantics for each parameter: identifies required vs optional parameters, explains merge_strategy options with enumerated values, clarifies defaults, and notes workspace is 'optional if configured'. This adds substantial value beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Merge a Pull Request') and target resource ('on Bitbucket Cloud'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'approve_pull_request', 'decline_pull_request', or 'update_pull_request'. It provides a complete verb+resource+platform combination that leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 prerequisites (e.g., whether the pull request must be approved or have passing checks), when merging is appropriate versus declining, or how it differs from related operations like 'update_pull_request'. The agent receives no contextual usage instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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.
Conciseness4/5
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.
Completeness3/5
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.
Parameters4/5
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.
Purpose5/5
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.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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.
Behavior2/5
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 approval') but lacks behavioral details: it doesn't specify required permissions (e.g., reviewer or admin rights), whether the action is reversible, rate limits, or error conditions (e.g., if approval doesn't exist). The description is minimal and misses key operational context 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by a clear 'Args' and 'Returns' section. It's efficient with minimal waste, though the 'Returns' section could be more specific (e.g., 'Confirmation message on success').
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (mutation with 3 parameters), no annotations, and an output schema present (which covers return values), the description is partially complete. It explains parameters well but lacks behavioral context (permissions, side effects) and usage guidelines. The output schema reduces the need to detail returns, but overall completeness is adequate with noticeable gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
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: it explains 'repo_slug' as 'Repository slug (name)', 'pr_id' as 'Pull Request ID to unapprove', and 'workspace' as 'Bitbucket workspace (optional if configured)'. This clarifies purpose and optionality, though it doesn't detail format constraints (e.g., slug conventions) or default behavior when workspace is omitted.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Remove approval from a Pull Request') and resource ('on Bitbucket Cloud'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'approve_pull_request' (which adds approval) and 'decline_pull_request' (which rejects the PR entirely). The verb 'Remove' is precise and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 prerequisites (e.g., needing existing approval), exclusions (e.g., cannot unapprove if already merged), or comparisons to siblings like 'request_changes_pull_request' or 'decline_pull_request'. Usage context is implied but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 'update' implies mutation, it doesn't specify permission requirements, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens when optional parameters are omitted. The description mentions the return format but lacks behavioral context beyond the basic operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with clear sections for Args and Returns, making it easy to parse. While somewhat lengthy due to parameter explanations, every sentence adds value. It could be slightly more concise by combining some parameter explanations, but overall it's efficiently organized.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a 9-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, the description does well by thoroughly documenting parameters and mentioning the return format. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values in detail. However, it lacks behavioral context like permission requirements or error handling.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description provides excellent parameter semantics despite 0% schema description coverage. It clearly explains each parameter's purpose, optionality, and specific values (e.g., state options like 'new', 'open', 'resolved'). This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions and adds significant value beyond the bare input schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
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 'existing issue', making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_issue' or 'get_issue' beyond the obvious difference in action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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_issue' or 'get_issue', nor does it mention prerequisites such as authentication requirements or workspace configuration. It simply states what the tool does without contextual usage information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 states the tool retrieves configuration details, implying a read-only operation, but does not specify error conditions (e.g., if the repository doesn't exist), authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether the data is cached. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by clear sections for arguments and returns. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant information. It could be slightly more concise by integrating the optional note into the parameter list, but overall it is efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (simple retrieval), 2 parameters with semantic clarification in the description, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return details), the description is largely complete. It covers the what, parameters, and returns adequately, though it lacks behavioral context like error handling or prerequisites, which holds it back from a perfect score.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaningful context for both parameters: 'repo_slug' is clarified as the repository name, and 'workspace' is noted as optional if configured, which helps understand when it can be omitted. With 0% schema description coverage, this compensates well, though it could detail format constraints (e.g., slug format) or default behaviors more explicitly.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('branching model configuration for a repository'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on operations like creating branches, pull requests, or repositories. It precisely identifies what is being retrieved without ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 does not mention prerequisites, such as whether the repository must exist or have a configured branching model, nor does it differentiate from other configuration-related tools like 'get_config_status' or 'get_repository'. Usage context 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.
Behavior2/5
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 a read operation ('Get details'), which implies safety, but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the commit doesn't exist. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
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's appropriately sized with no redundant information. The only minor improvement would be integrating the parameter explanations more seamlessly rather than as a separate list.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, but has output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It explains all parameters and return values ('Commit details including message, author, date, and parents'). The output schema existence means it doesn't need to detail return structure, but it could better address behavioral aspects like error handling.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
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 clearly explains all three parameters: 'repo_slug' as 'Repository slug (name)', 'commit_hash' as 'The commit hash', and 'workspace' as 'Bitbucket workspace (optional if configured)'. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema types, though it could elaborate on format expectations (e.g., hash length).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Get details') and resource ('a specific commit'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'list_commits' (which lists multiple commits) and 'get_commit_diff' (which focuses on changes). It precisely communicates the tool's function without redundancy.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 'list_commits' or 'get_pull_request_commits'. It mentions the workspace parameter is optional if configured, but offers no context about prerequisites, dependencies, or typical use cases for commit details retrieval.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 that the tool 'Creates a webhook' and returns 'Created webhook details or error message', but lacks details on permissions required, rate limits, whether the webhook is immediately active, or how errors are handled. This leaves significant gaps 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.
Conciseness4/5
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 with no redundant sentences, though the 'Args' section could be slightly more concise by integrating some details into the main description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that there is an output schema (which handles return values), the description does not need to explain returns in detail. However, as a mutation tool with no annotations and 6 parameters, the description should provide more behavioral context (e.g., authentication needs, error conditions). The parameter explanations are good, but overall completeness is moderate due to missing operational details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining all 6 parameters in the 'Args' section, adding meaning beyond the bare schema. It clarifies optional vs. required parameters, provides examples for 'events', and notes defaults for 'active' and 'workspace'. However, it doesn't specify format constraints (e.g., URL validation) or event enum values.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create a webhook') and the target resource ('for a repository'), making the purpose specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'delete_webhook' and 'list_webhooks' by focusing on creation rather than deletion or listing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when needing to set up a webhook for repository events, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_webhooks' for checking existing webhooks or 'delete_webhook' for removal. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving usage context partially inferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states this is a read operation ('Get'), which implies non-destructive behavior, but doesn't disclose authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or response format details. The description adds basic behavioral context but lacks depth for a tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with clear sections (purpose, Args, Returns) and uses minimal sentences. Each part earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy. It could be slightly more concise by integrating the sections more fluidly, but overall it's efficient and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, parameters, and return scope. The output schema exists, so the description doesn't need to detail return values. However, it could improve by adding more behavioral context (e.g., authentication) given the lack of annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
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 both parameters: 'repo_slug: Repository slug (name)' and 'workspace: Bitbucket workspace (optional if configured)'. This clarifies what each parameter represents and the conditional requirement for 'workspace', adding significant value beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get detailed information about a specific repository.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('repository'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_repositories' or 'get_workspace_details' that might provide related information. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context through the parameter descriptions (e.g., 'optional if configured'), but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_repositories' for broader listings or other 'get_' tools for specific repository components. Usage is implied rather than explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 mentions pagination behavior ('page' and 'pagelen' with defaults) and implies a read-only operation by using 'List,' but it doesn't cover aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or whether it's safe for repeated use. The description adds some context but lacks comprehensive behavioral details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured and appropriately sized, with a clear purpose statement followed by organized 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information, though the 'Returns' section could be slightly more detailed (e.g., mentioning pagination in returns). It's front-loaded with the main action, making it efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, but has an output schema), the description is fairly complete. It covers all parameters in detail and states the return value. However, it lacks behavioral context (e.g., error cases, pagination details in returns) and usage guidelines, which slightly reduces completeness for a tool in this context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Given a schema description coverage of 0%, the description fully compensates by detailing all 5 parameters in the 'Args' section. It explains each parameter's purpose (e.g., 'repo_slug: Repository slug (name)'), optionality (e.g., 'workspace: Bitbucket workspace (optional if configured)'), and defaults (e.g., 'page: Page number for pagination (default: 1)'), adding significant value beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
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 'List build statuses for a specific commit,' specifying both the verb ('List') and resource ('build statuses') with the scope ('for a specific commit'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_commit' or 'list_commits,' which focus on commits rather than their build statuses, leaving some ambiguity in sibling context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 lacks context such as prerequisites (e.g., needing a configured workspace), comparison to similar tools (e.g., 'get_commit' for commit details), or exclusions (e.g., not for listing all commits). This omission leaves usage unclear in the broader toolset.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions pagination behavior ('page' and 'pagelen' with defaults) and that it returns a list of PRs, which is helpful. However, it lacks critical details: it doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or whether it's a read-only operation (though 'List' implies reading). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a purpose statement followed by organized sections for Args and Returns. Each sentence earns its place by providing essential information. However, it could be slightly more concise by integrating the purpose into the Args section, and the 'Returns' line is somewhat redundant given the output schema, but it's still efficient overall.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (5 parameters, 1 required), no annotations, and an output schema present, the description is mostly complete. It thoroughly documents parameters and hints at behavior (pagination). The output schema handles return values, so the description doesn't need to detail them. However, it lacks authentication or error context, which is a minor gap for a tool with no annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
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 fully. It does so excellently: it explains all 5 parameters with clear semantics beyond the schema. For example, it defines 'repo_slug' as 'Repository slug (name)', lists allowed values for 'state' (OPEN, MERGED, etc.), clarifies 'workspace' as optional if configured, and details pagination defaults and limits. This adds substantial value over the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List Pull Requests for a repository on Bitbucket Cloud.' It specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('Pull Requests'), and distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_pull_request' (which retrieves a single PR) and 'list_repositories' (which lists repositories, not PRs). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all similar siblings (e.g., 'list_issues' for issue listing), so it's not a perfect 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context through the parameter explanations (e.g., 'optional if configured' for workspace), but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. For instance, it doesn't mention using 'get_pull_request' for a single PR or 'list_issues' for issues instead. The guidance is limited to parameter defaults and optionality, not broader tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions that the tool returns 'PR details including URL and ID, or error message', which adds some behavioral context about outputs. However, it lacks critical details like authentication requirements, rate limits, side effects (e.g., notifications to reviewers), or error conditions beyond the generic mention.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with clear sections for 'Args' and 'Returns', making it easy to scan. It is appropriately sized for an 8-parameter tool, with no redundant sentences. However, the 'Args' section is somewhat dense and could benefit from bullet points for better readability.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is mostly complete. It covers all parameters and hints at return values, though it lacks behavioral details like authentication or error handling. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to fully describe returns, but more context on usage scenarios would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining all 8 parameters in the 'Args' section, including semantics like 'Repository slug (name)', 'PR title', and optional/default values (e.g., 'default: main', 'optional'). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema, though it could be more detailed on formats (e.g., UUID format for reviewers).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Create a Pull Request') and the target resource ('on Bitbucket Cloud'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'update_pull_request' or 'get_pull_request'. It uses precise terminology that matches the tool's name without being tautological.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage through the tool's name and context, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_pull_request' or 'merge_pull_request'. It provides no guidance on prerequisites, such as requiring an existing repository or branch.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. While it states the tool adds reviewers without removing existing ones (a useful behavioral detail), it lacks critical information about permissions required, whether the operation is reversible, error conditions, or rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this represents significant gaps in behavioral transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The parameter explanations are organized clearly under 'Args:' and 'Returns:' sections. While efficient, the 'Returns' section could be slightly more informative about the structure of the 'Updated reviewer list'.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (mutation operation with 4 parameters), no annotations, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and parameters adequately but lacks important behavioral context about permissions, side effects, and error handling that would be expected for a mutation tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining each parameter's purpose: 'repo_slug: Repository slug (name)', 'pr_id: Pull Request ID', 'reviewer: UUID or account_id of the reviewer to add', and 'workspace: Bitbucket workspace (optional if configured)'. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema, though it could provide more context about format expectations or constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Add a reviewer to a Pull Request') and resource ('Pull Request'), with explicit differentiation from sibling tools like 'remove_reviewer' by noting 'without removing existing reviewers'. This provides a precise verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use this tool (to add reviewers without affecting existing ones), but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name specific alternatives. It implies usage for adding reviewers but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons to tools like 'approve_pull_request' or 'request_changes_pull_request'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 states this is a creation operation but doesn't mention required permissions, whether it's idempotent, rate limits, or error conditions beyond 'error message'. For a write tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with clear sections (purpose, args, returns) and uses bullet-like formatting. While efficient, the 'Args:' and 'Returns:' headers could be more integrated with the main text, and some phrasing ('optional if configured') could be slightly tightened.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, write operation) and no annotations, the description does well by documenting all parameters and noting the output schema exists. However, it lacks behavioral context (permissions, side effects) that would be crucial for safe agent use, preventing a perfect score.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing comprehensive parameter documentation: it explains all 7 parameters, including optional status, defaults, enums for kind/priority, and format guidance (e.g., 'markdown', 'Account ID'). This adds substantial value beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Create a new issue') and resource ('in a repository's issue tracker'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'update_issue' or 'list_issues'. It precisely communicates the tool's function without ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context through parameter documentation (e.g., 'optional if configured' for workspace), but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_issue' or prerequisites. It provides basic parameter context but no strategic usage advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 it states the action is to 'decline/close' (implying a destructive mutation), it doesn't mention permission requirements, whether the action is reversible, rate limits, or what specific confirmation message format to expect. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by well-organized parameter explanations and return information. Every sentence adds value, though the 'Args:' and 'Returns:' formatting could be slightly more concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a destructive mutation tool with no annotations but with an output schema (implied by 'Returns: Confirmation or error message'), the description covers the basic purpose and parameters adequately. However, for a tool that permanently closes pull requests, more behavioral context about permissions, irreversibility, 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.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides meaningful semantic context for all 4 parameters: 'repo_slug' is explained as 'Repository slug (name)', 'pr_id' as 'Pull Request ID to decline', 'reason' as 'Optional reason for declining (will be added as a comment)', and 'workspace' as 'Bitbucket workspace (optional if configured)'. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Decline/close a Pull Request'), specifies the resource ('on Bitbucket Cloud'), and distinguishes it from alternatives by explicitly stating 'without merging'. This differentiates it from sibling tools like 'merge_pull_request' and 'update_pull_request'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context by stating this tool declines/close pull requests 'without merging', which implicitly suggests when to use it versus merging alternatives. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name specific alternative tools beyond the implied contrast with merging.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 states the tool returns 'diff content as text', which is useful, but lacks critical details: whether this is a read-only operation, any rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or format specifics (e.g., unified diff). 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by well-organized Args and Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy. The formatting with bullet-like sections enhances readability while maintaining brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, but has output schema), the description is reasonably complete. The output schema exists, so the description doesn't need to detail return values beyond stating 'diff content as text'. It covers parameter semantics well despite 0% schema coverage. However, the lack of behavioral context (especially with no annotations) prevents a perfect score.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
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 semantic explanations for all three parameters: repo_slug as 'Repository slug (name)', spec as 'Commit hash or range' with examples, and workspace as 'Bitbucket workspace (optional if configured)'. This adds substantial value beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't cover all possible edge cases (e.g., format of repo_slug).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Get the diff') and resource ('for a commit or commit range'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_commit (which retrieves commit metadata) or get_pull_request_diff (which focuses on pull requests). The verb+resource combination is precise and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for retrieving diff content from commits, but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like get_commit_diffstat (for statistics) or get_pull_request_diff (for pull request diffs). It mentions the workspace parameter is optional if configured, which offers some context but doesn't address tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
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 effectively communicates the critical behavioral trait: 'This action is irreversible,' which is essential for a destructive operation. However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens to associated data (branches, issues, etc.).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured and appropriately sized, with a clear purpose statement upfront, followed by parameter and return value sections. Every sentence adds value, though the 'Returns' section could be slightly more informative given the output schema exists.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a destructive tool with no annotations, 2 parameters (0% schema coverage), and an output schema, the description does a good job covering essentials: purpose, irreversibility, and parameter meanings. However, it lacks details on error conditions, permissions, or side effects, which would enhance completeness for such a high-stakes operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
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 basic semantic context for both parameters ('repo_slug: Repository slug (name)' and 'workspace: Bitbucket workspace (optional if configured)'), explaining what they represent. However, it doesn't clarify format details (e.g., slug syntax) or the 'optional if configured' condition, leaving some gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Delete') and resource ('a repository'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'create_repository' or 'fork_repository'. It provides a precise verb+resource combination that leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context through the warning 'This action is irreversible,' suggesting it should be used cautiously. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (like 'delete_branch' or 'delete_snippet') or provide clear prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It states the tool is a read operation ('Get') and describes the return format, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or whether it's a safe operation. The description adds basic context but lacks important operational details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Perfectly structured with a clear purpose statement followed by organized sections for Args and Returns. Every sentence earns its place - the first sentence establishes purpose, parameter explanations are essential, and the return statement is necessary. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a read-only tool with 3 parameters and an output schema, the description is quite complete. It covers purpose, all parameters with semantics, and return format. The main gap is lack of behavioral context (auth, errors, limits) which would be helpful despite the output schema. Given the tool's relative simplicity, it's mostly adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining all 3 parameters: 'repo_slug' as repository name, 'spec' as commit hash or range with examples, and 'workspace' as optional Bitbucket workspace. This adds crucial semantic meaning beyond the bare schema types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Get the diffstat'), resource ('for a commit or commit range'), and output format ('summary of changes'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_commit_diff' (full diff) and 'get_pull_request_diffstat' (PR-specific) by focusing on commit-level diffstat.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context through the parameter explanations (e.g., 'optional if configured' for workspace), but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_commit_diff' or 'get_pull_request_diffstat'. No explicit exclusions or prerequisites are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's read-only nature implicitly through 'Get', but lacks details on permissions required, rate limits, error conditions, or pagination. The return format is described, adding some behavioral context, but critical operational traits are missing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
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's appropriately sized with no redundant information, though the 'Args' and 'Returns' labels could be integrated more seamlessly into the flow.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, read-only operation), the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, parameters, and return values. With an output schema present, detailed return explanations are unnecessary. However, it lacks context on authentication needs or error handling, leaving minor gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
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 explains the meaning of 'repo_slug' as 'Repository slug (name)' and 'workspace' as 'Bitbucket workspace (optional if configured)', adding semantic clarity beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't detail format constraints (e.g., slug patterns) or default behaviors when workspace is omitted.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Get') and resource ('default reviewers configured for a repository'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'add_reviewer' or 'remove_reviewer'. It precisely defines what the tool retrieves without ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for retrieving default reviewers, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'get_user_permissions' for reviewer permissions) or prerequisites. It mentions the workspace parameter is optional 'if configured', which offers some contextual hint but not comprehensive alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 indicates this is a creation operation (implying mutation) and mentions the return format ('Created repository details or error message'), but doesn't address important behavioral aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens on duplicate repository names. It provides basic behavioral context but misses key operational details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with clear sections (purpose, Args, Returns) and uses bullet-like formatting for parameters. While efficient, the parameter explanations could be slightly more concise, and the 'Returns' section could be integrated more smoothly. Overall, it's front-loaded and organized with minimal waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, creation operation), no annotations, but with an output schema present, the description provides good coverage. It explains all parameters thoroughly and mentions the return format. The main gap is lack of behavioral context like authentication needs or error handling, but the parameter documentation is excellent and the output schema handles return values.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage and 7 parameters, the description provides comprehensive parameter documentation in the 'Args' section, explaining each parameter's purpose, optionality, defaults, and valid values (e.g., fork_policy options). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions and adds significant value beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Create a new repository') and resource ('in a Bitbucket workspace'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'fork_repository' or 'update_repository'. It provides a complete verb+resource+scope statement that leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context through the mention of Bitbucket workspace and optional parameters, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'fork_repository' or 'create_project'. It provides basic context but lacks explicit guidance on tool selection scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 the action is a read operation ('Get'), which implies non-destructive behavior, but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or response formats beyond 'File contents as text'. This leaves gaps in understanding the tool's full behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by organized parameter and return value sections. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse for both humans and AI agents.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
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, 2 required), no annotations, and an output schema present (implied by 'Returns'), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, parameters, and return values adequately, though it could benefit from more behavioral context (e.g., error handling) to fully compensate for the lack of annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description provides detailed parameter semantics in the 'Args' section, explaining each parameter's purpose (e.g., 'ref' as 'Branch name, tag, or commit hash'), which compensates for the 0% schema description coverage. It clarifies optionality and defaults, adding significant value beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't cover edge cases or format examples.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Get the contents of a file') and resource ('from a repository at a specific branch/commit'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_commit' or 'search_code' that operate on different resources. It precisely defines the tool's scope without being vague or tautological.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when file contents are needed from a repository, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_commit' (for metadata) or 'search_code' (for broader searches). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving usage context partially inferred rather than clearly defined.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 it mentions the tool returns 'diff content as text', it doesn't describe important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation (implied but not stated), rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or pagination for large diffs. The description provides basic output format but misses key operational context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is perfectly structured and front-loaded: purpose statement first, then organized parameter explanations, then return value. Every sentence earns its place - the opening statement defines the tool, the Args section documents parameters efficiently, and the Returns section clarifies output. No wasted words or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (5 parameters, 2 required), 0% schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description does well but has gaps. The parameter documentation is excellent, and the output schema handles return values, but behavioral aspects (permissions, rate limits, error handling) are missing. For a read operation with no annotations, this is mostly complete but could benefit from safety/constraint information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining all 5 parameters in the 'Args' section. Each parameter gets clear semantic explanation: repo_slug as 'Repository slug (name)', pr_id as 'Pull Request ID', file_path with usage guidance, context_lines with default value, and workspace with configuration note. This adds substantial value beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Get the diff') and resource ('for a Pull Request'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_pull_request (which retrieves metadata) and get_commit_diff (which operates on commits rather than PRs). The phrase 'code changes' in parentheses provides additional clarity about what a diff contains.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use optional parameters ('recommended for large PRs'), but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_pull_request_diffstat (which shows summary statistics) or get_commit_diff (for commit-level diffs). It offers practical guidance but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool retrieves profile information, indicating a read-only operation, but lacks details on authentication requirements, rate limits, or error behaviors. The description adds basic context but misses deeper behavioral traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence and uses a 'Returns:' section efficiently to detail output without redundancy. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information in a compact format.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, but has an output schema), the description is mostly complete. It explains what the tool does and what it returns, but could benefit from more behavioral context like authentication details. The output schema likely covers return values, reducing the need for extensive description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not add parameter semantics beyond the schema, but since there are no parameters, this is acceptable. Baseline is 4 as per rules for 0 parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Get') and resource ('currently authenticated user's profile information'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_user_profile' or 'get_user_permissions' by focusing on the current session's user rather than a specified user. It provides explicit differentiation in purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context by specifying 'currently authenticated user,' suggesting it should be used for retrieving the profile of the user associated with the current session. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_user_profile' or provide exclusions, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 indicates this is a read operation ('Check' and 'get'), implying it's non-destructive, but does not specify authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or response format details beyond high-level content. It adds some context about what the status includes (conflicts, approvals, blockers) but lacks operational specifics.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The 'Args' and 'Returns' sections are clearly separated, making it easy to scan. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and the total length is appropriate for the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It explains the purpose, parameters, and return content at a high level. The presence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to detail return values extensively, but it could benefit from more behavioral context (e.g., authentication, errors) to fully compensate for the lack of annotations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides clear semantic explanations for all three parameters: 'repo_slug' as 'Repository slug (name)', 'pr_id' as 'Pull Request ID', and 'workspace' as 'Bitbucket workspace (optional if configured)'. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it could include examples or format details (e.g., what a 'slug' looks like).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Check if a Pull Request can be merged') and the resource ('Pull Request'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'merge_pull_request' (which performs the merge) and 'get_pull_request' (which retrieves general PR info). The phrase 'and get merge status details' further clarifies the dual purpose of checking mergeability and retrieving detailed status.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context by specifying it checks merge status, suggesting it should be used before attempting to merge a pull request. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_pull_request' (which might include some status) or 'merge_pull_request' (which performs the merge), nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 behavior (page numbers, results per page with a max of 100) and that the workspace parameter is optional if configured, which adds useful operational context. However, it does not cover other important aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or whether this is a read-only operation (though 'List' implies it).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a purpose statement followed by clearly labeled 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy. The front-loaded purpose statement immediately communicates the tool's function and use case.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that there is an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, the description does a good job covering purpose, parameters, and basic behavior. However, it could be more complete by mentioning authentication needs, error handling, or rate limits, especially since annotations are absent. The sibling tools include many write operations, so clarifying this is a read-only tool would help.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
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 explanations for all three parameters: 'workspace' (Bitbucket workspace, optional if configured), 'page' (page number for pagination with default), and 'pagelen' (results per page with max 100 and default). This adds significant value beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't detail format constraints (e.g., workspace naming conventions) for a perfect score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('List members') and resource ('of a Bitbucket workspace'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'list_workspaces' or 'list_workspace_permissions'. It also provides a specific use case ('to find users who can be added as reviewers'), which adds practical context beyond a generic listing function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states when to use this tool ('to find users who can be added as reviewers'), providing clear context for its application. However, it does not mention when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools (e.g., 'get_user_permissions' or 'list_workspace_permissions'), which would be needed for a score of 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 reveals pagination behavior (page/pagelen parameters with defaults) and that workspace is optional if configured, which adds useful operational context. However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or whether this is a read-only operation (though 'List' implies reading).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is perfectly structured and economical: a clear purpose statement followed by organized parameter documentation and return value indication. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant information. The information is front-loaded with the core purpose immediately stated.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
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, but with an output schema indicated, the description provides good coverage. It explains all parameters thoroughly and indicates return values. However, for a tool with no annotations, it could benefit from mentioning authentication or rate limit considerations to be fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing clear documentation for all 4 parameters: repo_slug (repository slug/name), workspace (optional Bitbucket workspace), page (page number with default), and pagelen (results per page with max and default). This adds substantial value beyond the bare schema, explaining purpose, defaults, and constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('List webhooks') and resource ('configured for a repository'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'list_workspace_webhooks' (which lists webhooks at workspace level) and 'create_webhook'/'delete_webhook' (which are write operations). The verb+resource combination is precise and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context through the parameter documentation (repository focus, optional workspace) and distinguishes from 'list_workspace_webhooks' by specifying repository scope. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria, leaving some guidance implicit rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![bitbucket-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Acendas/bitbucket-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Acendas/bitbucket-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![bitbucket-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Acendas/bitbucket-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Acendas/bitbucket-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Acendas/bitbucket-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server