Check build and CI statuses for a specific Bitbucket commit by providing the repository slug and commit hash, with an optional workspace to target the right project.
List build/CI statuses attached to a commit.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| commit | Yes | ||
| repoSlug | Yes | ||
| workspace | No | Omit to use the configured default workspace |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, covering the safety profile. But the description adds no additional behavioral context such as pagination, the exact status types returned, or whether an invalid commit fails silently, so it does not go beyond the structured hints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, compact sentence that states the action and the resource without filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple list operation and remains front-loaded with the essential purpose.
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?
The tool takes 3 parameters, has no output schema, and has low schema description coverage. A one-line description does not sufficiently explain the exact parameters, response shape, or behavior for an agent to invoke it confidently, especially given the sibling tools that command similar actions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With schema description coverage at only 33%, the description should compensate by clarifying the meaning of commit and repoSlug, but it only says 'build/CI statuses attached to a commit.' The workspace parameter is already documented in the schema, but the other two essential parameters remain ambiguously named and unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'build/CI statuses attached to a commit,' so an agent can understand the core function. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like bitbucket_pull_request_list_statuses, leaving the distinction entirely to the tool name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no cues about when to use this tool over siblings such as pull_request_list_statuses or commit_get. It also omits any prerequisites (e.g., existing CI integrations) or exclusions, leaving the agent without routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.