Resolve an exact Git tag name in a Bitbucket repository to retrieve its full target commit hash without scanning page results.
Resolve an exact tag name without scanning pages; returns full target hash.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tag_name | Yes | ||
| repo_slug | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return value ('full target hash') and that it avoids page scanning, but says nothing about authentication, behavior when the tag is missing, or whether the hash is a commit or annotated tag object.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single tightly written sentence with the key differentiator ('without scanning pages') and the return value front-loaded. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Return value is covered despite no output schema, and the exact-match semantics of tag_name are stated. Missing are error behavior for nonexistent tags and any explanation of repo_slug, which leaves a two-parameter tool under-documented.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It adds only that tag_name must be an exact name; repo_slug is left completely unexplained, as is whether the slug is owner/repo or a numeric ID.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource: resolves an exact tag name and returns the full target hash. This implicitly distinguishes it from list_tags (which scans pages) and from create_tag/delete_tag, but it does not explicitly name any sibling.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
'Without scanning pages' implies you should use this when you already know the exact tag name, as an alternative to paginating list_tags. However, it never states the condition explicitly or names the alternative, so the agent must infer it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.