bitbucket-mcp
Server Quality Checklist
Latest release: v1.0.0
- Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action. Pull request tools are clearly separated by operation (get, create, update, merge, approve, etc.) and by scope (list vs detail, comments vs inline comments vs replies). Pipeline tools are similarly distinct for runs, steps, and logs.
Naming Consistency5/5Tool names consistently follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., get_pull_request, create_pull_request_comment, get_pipeline_steps). Even the slightly longer names like request_pull_request_changes or diagnose_pipeline_failure remain readable and align with the pattern.
Tool Count4/526 tools is slightly above the typical 3-15 range, but the scope intentionally covers both pull request management (21 tools) and pipeline inspection (5 tools). Each tool serves a distinct, non-redundant purpose, making the count justified rather than bloated.
Completeness4/5The pull request lifecycle is well covered: create, update, merge, decline, approve, request changes, comments, diffs, commits, and statuses. Pipelines cover listing, getting details, steps, logs, and failure diagnosis. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no general list of PRs filtered by state, no pipeline triggering), but they are non-critical for most workflows.
Average 2.8/5 across 26 of 26 tools scored. Lowest: 1.4/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 1 commit in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
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.jsonto 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
- Behavior1/5
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 merely states the action 'Approve' without explaining side effects, permissions, reversibility, or what the response contains, leaving the agent without essential safety or 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.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While the description is extremely short, it is under-specified rather than concise. The single sentence does not earn its place because it merely restates the tool name and provides no useful information, making it wasteful despite its brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has a simple schema and an output schema, but the description is too brief to be complete. It does not explain what 'approving' entails, the conditions under which it can be performed, or any behavioral implications. The agent cannot confidently invoke this tool based solely on the description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has one parameter (pull_request_id) with 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention or explain the parameter at all. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema metadata, leaving the agent with no additional semantic understanding beyond the type and title.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Approve a pull request.' is a direct restatement of the tool name 'approve_pull_request' with no additional clarification. It is a tautology, adding no information beyond what the name already conveys.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 unapprove_pull_request or request_pull_request_changes. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Update a pull request' with no mention of side effects, permissions, or whether changes are reversible. This is a mutation tool, and the description provides zero 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.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no redundant words, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It provides only the bare minimum, so it does not earn its place beyond echoing the tool name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema and three parameters, the description adds no contextual completeness. It lacks any guidance on expected input behavior, return values, or how this tool fits into the broader PR workflow. The sibling tools are not referenced.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate at all. It does not explain what 'title' or 'description' represent, nor the significance of pull_request_id. Parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the tool offers no additional semantic value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Update a pull request' is essentially a restatement of the tool name, providing no additional specificity about what updating entails. It does not distinguish this from other mutation tools like merge_pull_request or edit_pull_request_comment.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that the PR must already exist, what fields are updatable, or when to prefer merge/create/delete 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, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only reveals that the tool creates something. It does not state whether the comment is immediately visible, how 'pending' affects posting, what happens to existing threads, or whether special permissions are needed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise, front-loaded sentence with little waste. However, for a tool with five parameters, it is under-specified and reads more like a placeholder than an informative definition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a mutating tool with no annotations, no schema descriptions, and an ambiguous inline-comment concept. The description omits required parameter semantics, behavioral effects, and any mention of return behavior, leaving it incomplete despite the presence of an output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters, but it does not. It fails to clarify that 'path' and 'line' locate the comment in the diff, 'text' is the comment body, 'pull_request_id' identifies the target PR, or that 'pending' controls visibility.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Add') and names a clear resource ('inline comment to a pull request'), and the term 'inline' hints at distinction from the general create_pull_request_comment sibling. However, it does not fully articulate that inline comments are tied to a specific file path and line in the diff.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_pull_request_comment or reply_to_pull_request_comment. The description provides neither a use case nor exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
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 merely states 'Open a pull request' without revealing side effects such as whether close_source_branch defaults to true, permission requirements, or what happens after successful creation. This is a significant gap 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.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single clear sentence with no wasted words, making it efficient and easy to parse. However, it is so terse that it borders on under-specification, though this is more a completeness issue than a conciseness one.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity—5 parameters, 2 required, no annotations, and an output schema—the description is critically incomplete. It fails to specify required inputs, default behavior, or any workflow context, making it insufficient for reliable tool selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention any parameters. It provides no additional meaning beyond the parameter names, leaving agents to infer the role of source_branch, destination_branch, or close_source_branch from the schema alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Open a pull request' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing this creation action from sibling read/update/merge tools. It is more than a tautology because 'open' is a natural synonym for 'create' in this context, though it remains minimal without extra details.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_pull_request or merge_pull_request. There is no mention of prerequisites, branch strategy, or scenarios where creation is appropriate.
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 available, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does not mention that this is a mutation, potential permission requirements, reversibility, side effects (e.g., whether the edit overwrites the entire comment), or any rate limits. The one-sentence description adds no behavioral context beyond the obvious.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely terse, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. While the sentence 'Edit a pull request comment.' earns its place, it does not provide enough substance to support effective tool usage, making it incomplete rather than efficiently concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and a 0% parameter description coverage, the description is severely incomplete. It does not mention return values (despite an output schema existing), error conditions, concurrency issues, or any usage context. This is inadequate for an agent to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate. The parameter names (text, comment_id, pull_request_id) are minimally self-explanatory, but the description does not clarify their meaning or relationships. For instance, it does not state that 'text' is the new content of the comment or that pull_request_id identifies the PR containing the comment.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'edit' and the resource 'pull request comment', which immediately distinguishes it from sibling tools like create or delete. However, it lacks any additional context about what editing entails, so it does not fully differentiate from the 'update_pull_request' tool, though that operates on a different resource.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_pull_request_comment or delete_pull_request_comment. No context about prerequisites, use cases, or when not to use it 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 full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action, without mentioning side effects like closing the source branch, needing merge permissions, or whether the operation is reversible. It adds little beyond what the tool name implies.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, which is concise, but it is under-specified for a tool with four parameters and potential side effects. It does not earn its place because it essentially restates the tool name without adding useful structure or context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has a moderately complex operation (merge strategies, source branch behavior, message) and no annotations. While an output schema exists, the description fails to cover key aspects like when merging is allowed, what merge strategies are available, or the effect of close_source_branch. The description is too thin for the decision-making an agent must handle.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the four parameters. The schema provides names and types (e.g., merge_strategy, close_source_branch), but their meaning and behavior are not described anywhere, leaving the agent to guess.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Merge') and the resource ('a pull request'), so it identifies the core purpose. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like approve_pull_request or update_pull_request, though the verb 'merge' is specific enough to be understood on its own.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 (e.g., required approvals, CI status), nor does it exclude cases like merge conflicts or protected branches. Sibling tools add context but are not referenced.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior1/5
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 does not state what 'resolve' does (e.g., hides the thread, requires permissions, is reversible), what side effects occur, or what the response looks like. This is a significant gap 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.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with a clear verb-object structure, front-loaded and free of fluff. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it lacks substance that would make it more useful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description fails to provide behavioral context, usage guidance, or parameter semantics. The tool is a mutation with no annotations, and the description only states a minimal action. This is insufficient for an agent to understand when and how to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no information about the parameters pull_request_id or comment_id. It does not explain their roles, expected formats, or how they relate to the action. The description adds no semantic value beyond the parameter names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Resolve a pull request comment thread' clearly identifies the action (resolve) and the resource (pull request comment thread). It is distinct from sibling tools like reply_to_pull_request_comment, edit_pull_request_comment, and delete_pull_request_comment, making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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, when resolving is appropriate, or how it differs from editing/deleting a comment. Context must be inferred entirely from the tool name.
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 present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that a comment is added, but does not mention pending behavior, authentication needs, or side effects like whether it modifies existing content. For a creation tool, this is a significant transparency gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no redundancy. It is appropriately compact, though it sacrifices explanatory depth.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 3 parameters, no annotations, and a description that only states the core action, the tool lacks context around when to use it, what parameters do, and what the result entails. The presence of an output schema helps but is not shown, so the description alone is insufficient for an agent to select and invoke correctly among many comment tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description provides no parameter semantics. It does not explain what 'text', 'pending', or 'pull_request_id' mean beyond the schema's type/default information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Add' and specifies the resource 'comment to a pull request', clearly distinguishing from the many comment-related sibling tools. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclude inline/reply comments, so it loses 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 Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools such as create_inline_pull_request_comment, reply_to_pull_request_comment, or edit_pull_request_comment. The description states only the action, not context 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, the description must disclose behavioral traits but only says 'Decline a pull request.' It does not explain what 'decline' entails, such as whether it is reversible, what state changes occur, or if special permissions are needed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short and front-loaded, which is good for conciseness. However, it borders on under-specification, providing only the bare minimum information without any supportive context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this is a mutating action with no annotations and a single parameter, the description should provide more context about side effects, reversibility, or when to use it. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for the lack of behavioral explanation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate for parameter semantics. However, it provides no information about the 'pull_request_id' parameter beyond its existence. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description adds no additional context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Decline') and the resource ('a pull request'). It is specific enough to distinguish from siblings like 'approve_pull_request' or 'merge_pull_request', though it does not explicitly reference them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as requiring the pull request to be open, or exclusions like not using it for merged requests.
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 responsibility. It only implies a read operation via 'get' but does not disclose details such as whether it requires authentication, whether it returns comments in chronological order, or whether it includes inline comments. This lack of behavioral context is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, which is concise. However, it is under-specified for a multi-faceted resource like pull request comments, and the lack of any additional structure (e.g., examples or scope clarifications) makes it feel sparse rather than efficiently complete.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the extensive sibling list of comment-related tools (create, edit, delete, resolve, etc.), the description does not clarify which type of comments are returned or what data structure to expect. Although an output schema exists, the ambiguity around 'comments' versus 'inline comments' and the absence of any contextual cues make this incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema lists a single required parameter 'pull_request_id' but the description provides no explanation of what this ID refers to, how to obtain it, or any constraints. With 0% schema description coverage, the tool description fails to compensate, leaving the agent to guess the parameter's semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get a pull request's comments' clearly identifies the verb (get) and resource (pull request's comments), distinguishing it from tools that operate on diffs, commits, or statuses. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate between regular comments and inline comments, given the sibling tools include create_inline_pull_request_comment.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of scenarios like retrieving all comments versus a specific comment, and no context about related tools such as create_pull_request_comment or reply_to_pull_request_comment. The tool is simply presented without usage conditions.
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, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It merely states the action without explaining effects, prerequisites, or how 'reply_to' relates to existing comments, leaving ambiguity about the operation's mutating nature.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words, front-loaded with the core purpose. However, its brevity borders on under-specification.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 4 parameters and no annotations, yet the description provides minimal behavioral context. An output schema exists, but it does not compensate for the missing operational details like side effects or parameter relationships.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no parameter explanations. Terms like 'reply_to' and 'pending' remain unspecified, forcing reliance on schema property names alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'reply' and a resource 'pull request comment', clearly indicating the action. It is distinct from sibling tools like create_pull_request_comment, though it does not explicitly contrast them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 such as create_pull_request_comment or edit_pull_request_comment. The description gives no context for appropriate 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 must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Get a pipeline run,' with no mention of return behavior, error conditions, or whether the run is current/historical. The read-only nature is implied by 'get,' but no additional context is given.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence with no wasted words. However, it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise; it trades value for brevity. Given the simplicity, this is acceptable but not excellent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple single-ID retrieval with an output schema, the description is minimal but functional. It fails to mention the relationship to pipeline_id or any selection criteria, but the schema and resource name cover the basics. With sibling tools, the purpose is distinguishable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter pipeline_id is not mentioned in the description. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate, but it does not. While the parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, the description adds no guidance on its meaning or format.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'get' with the resource 'pipeline run', clearly identifying the tool's function. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_pipeline_steps and get_pipeline_step_log, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with get_pipelines.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus get_pipelines or get_pipeline_steps. The description only states what it does, not when to invoke it, leaving the agent to infer usage from the resource name.
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 only restates that a log is fetched and does not mention response size, pagination, format, read-only status, or any operational constraints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is concise, though slightly under-specified; still appropriate for the tool's low complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While an output schema exists and the parameter names are helpful, the description lacks usage context, alternative tool comparisons, and behavioral details. For a low-complexity retrieval tool, it is barely adequate but leaves important selection and invocation questions unanswered.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description adds no parameter explanations beyond the self-descriptive names pipeline_id and step_uuid. It does not clarify how to obtain these values or any format requirements.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and a clear resource ('the log for a pipeline step'), making the tool's function immediately understandable. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like get_pipeline_steps, though it does not explicitly call out alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus related tools such as diagnose_pipeline_failure or get_pipeline_steps. No prerequisites, sequencing, or exclusions 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, but it only says 'Request changes' without disclosing what that entails (e.g., whether it creates a review, changes status, notifies people, or has side effects). No behavior beyond the literal verb is described.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for the simplicity of the tool, though this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is minimal and does not provide enough context about the tool's role in the pull request workflow. While the output schema exists and the parameter is simple, the lack of annotation and behavioral detail makes it inadequate for an agent to fully understand when and how to use this tool, especially among many similar siblings.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage for the single parameter 'pull_request_id'. The tool description does not explain this parameter at all, relying on the schema name and type (integer) to convey meaning. It fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Request changes') and the resource ('pull request'), making it clear what the tool does. However, it does not distinguish this from siblings like 'withdraw_pull_request_changes' or 'decline_pull_request', so it doesn't earn 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 Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone. This is a significant gap given the presence of similar 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, the description carries the full burden for disclosing behavioral traits. It does not mention irreversibility, permission requirements, or any side effects (e.g., deletion of replies). The description merely states the operation without added context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, succinct sentence with no redundant words. It is appropriately front-loaded and wastes no space, though it is terse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While the operation is simple and an output schema exists, the description lacks any guidance on usage or side effects. For a delete operation, this is too sparse, especially with no annotations. It is not complete enough for confident tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining the parameters. It does not refer to comment_id or pull_request_id at all, leaving the agent to rely solely on the parameter names. This fails to add meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Delete') with a clear resource ('pull request comment'), making its purpose unambiguous. It naturally distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create, edit, resolve, or reopen comments.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as edit or resolve. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or mention of scenarios where deletion is appropriate.
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 carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states a simple get operation and offers no information about output format, ordering, permissions, or potential side effects. The existence of an output schema helps somewhat, but the description itself is thin.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
At nine words, the description is extremely concise and front-loaded, containing no redundant or irrelevant information. It efficiently communicates the core purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-parameter getter with an output schema, the description is minimally sufficient but lacks usage guidance and behavioral detail. It does not explain what constitutes a step or how the results are structured, though the output schema presumably covers the latter. This makes 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.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has one required parameter, pipeline_id, with 0% coverage in the description. The description implies that pipeline_id identifies the pipeline whose steps are returned, but it adds no format, examples, or constraints beyond what the parameter name and type already convey. With low schema coverage, the description should compensate, and it does not.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description identifies the operation (get) and resource (a pipeline's steps), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_pipeline_step_log (logs for a step) and get_pipeline (pipeline details). However, it does not explicitly name these alternatives, so it falls short of 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 Guidelines2/5Does 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 other pipeline-related tools. It does not mention alternatives, prerequisites, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer context from the 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 available, the description must disclose behavioral traits but only states a generic 'Get' operation. It does not mention that this is a read-only action, what the 'details' encompass, or any authentication/error handling considerations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no redundant words, effectively communicating the core action. It is appropriately sized for the tool's apparent simplicity, though its brevity limits the information delivered.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter retrieval tool with an output schema available, the description is adequate but leaves gaps. It does not clarify the scope of 'details' or provide usage context, which is especially important given the numerous related pull request tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema contains a single parameter with no description, and the tool description provides no explanation of what pull_request_id means or how it should be formatted. At 0% schema coverage, the description was expected to compensate but does not, leaving the parameter's semantics entirely to the property name and type.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Get' and targets the resource 'a pull request's details', which clearly indicates a single-resource retrieval operation. It distinguishes from sibling list operations like get_open_pull_requests and from specialized views like get_pull_request_diff, though this differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 such as get_open_pull_requests for listing or get_pull_request_diff for code changes. The description lacks any context about typical use cases or prerequisites.
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, and the description only states the action without disclosing behavioral traits such as whether the operation is reversible, requires special permissions, or has side effects. It doesn't mention what happens if the user hasn't approved the PR or whether approval notifications are sent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the action verb and contains no redundant or filler text. It is concise and directly communicates the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While the tool is simple with only one parameter and has an output schema, the description lacks essential behavioral context for a mutation tool. It does not mention error conditions, permissions, or the outcome of unapproving, and it does not compensate for the missing annotations or parameter documentation. This leaves the description incomplete for an agent to safely invoke the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema shows a single required integer parameter 'pull_request_id' with no description, and the tool description does not explain the purpose of this parameter. There is 0% schema description coverage, and the description fails to compensate by explicitly stating that the parameter identifies the pull request to unapprove.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Remove' and clearly identifies the resource ('your approval from a pull request'). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like approve_pull_request and request_pull_request_changes by focusing on the act of retracting an approval.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 any prerequisites (e.g., must have previously approved) or exclusions. The context of 'removing approval' is implied but not explicitly framed as a corrective or retraction 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('Get') and the resource, without revealing any additional traits such as pagination, ordering, authentication needs, or whether it returns only certain commits. This is minimal disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it very concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While the tool is simple and has an output schema, the description lacks usage context and behavioral details. It does not explain when to use this over siblings or what to expect in the response, making it incomplete for a tool in a large family.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description offers no explanation of the pull_request_id parameter beyond what the schema already shows. The parameter is self-explanatory, but the description does not compensate for the lack of coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Get' and names the exact resource 'a pull request's commits'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_pull_request_diff or get_pull_request_comments, which target different aspects.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 is no mention of scenarios or exclusions, and it does not reference other sibling tools that might be confused with 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 only states the action without detailing side effects, permissions, or conditions (e.g., whether the thread must already be closed). This lacks the transparency expected 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It is entirely front-loaded and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with two params and an action that is self-explanatory, but the description lacks any guidance on usage, alternatives, or prerequisites. While the presence of an output schema may cover return values, the description still leaves gaps in context that could be filled with a brief note (e.g., 'Use this to reopen a resolved thread.').
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no information about the parameters (pull_request_id, comment_id) beyond their names in the schema. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema-level descriptions, so the agent gains no additional meaning from it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Reopen a pull request comment thread' uses a specific verb ('reopen') and resource ('pull request comment thread'), making it clear what the tool does. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like resolve_pull_request_comment, which performs the opposite action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies its usage context—reopening a previously resolved comment thread—but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, so guidance is only 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.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It only restates the tool's action ('Get') without disclosing any additional behavioral traits such as error handling, permissions, or whether it returns only the latest statuses. The description adds almost no information beyond the tool's name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no fluff. It is front-loaded and easy to scan. However, it is essentially a restatement of the tool name and provides little additional semantic value, which prevents a perfect score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a simple tool with one parameter and an output schema, so the description is minimally sufficient. Still, it lacks any context about how build statuses relate to other tools like get_pipelines, or any caveats about when to use it. The absence of annotations and guidance makes it merely adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. The description mentions 'a pull request' which loosely connects to the pull_request_id parameter, but it does not explicitly explain the parameter's role, constraints, or usage. The parameter is self-explanatory by name, but the description adds minimal value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (Get) and the specific resource (build statuses of a pull request). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like get_pull_request or get_pull_request_diff because 'build statuses' is a unique resource among the sibling names.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage: if you need build statuses for a pull request, use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives (e.g., get_pipelines) or provide any exclusions or prerequisites.
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 responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get', implying a read operation, but does not disclose details such as diff format, size limits, authentication requirements, or whether the diff includes metadata. Minimal beyond the tool's name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no filler, repetition, or unnecessary details. It is front-loaded and immediately communicates the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description adequately communicates the core purpose, but it lacks usage context and behavioral details. It is minimally viable but leaves the agent with little guidance beyond the basic action.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one required parameter, pull_request_id, with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not add any meaning beyond the parameter name and integer type, failing to compensate for the low coverage, although the parameter is self-explanatory.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and a clear resource ('a pull request's diff'), which unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_pull_request, get_pull_request_commits, and get_pull_request_statuses. It states exactly what the tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when the caller needs the diff of a pull request, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no prerequisites. It is clear but does not actively direct 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 must carry the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the action without explaining side effects (e.g., whether it clears the previous request, allows the PR to be merged, or whether it is reversible). It does not mention permissions, idempotency, or error conditions if no request exists.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action. It contains no filler or redundant information, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter, an output schema, and no annotations, the description provides a minimum viable level of completeness. However, it lacks important context such as whether the user must be the author of the change request, what happens if the request does not exist, and any side effects on the pull request state. This goes beyond what the parameter and output schema would capture.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention the single required parameter 'pull_request_id'. While the parameter name is self-explanatory, the description adds no explicit guidance on how the parameter is used, leaving the agent to infer that the pull request must be specified.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'Withdraw your changes request on a pull request.' It uses a specific verb ('withdraw') and identifies the resource ('changes request on a pull request'). It distinguishes from siblings by implying it is the inverse of 'request_pull_request_changes', and 'your' indicates it operates on the user's own request, differentiating it from actions like 'decline_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 Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the usage context: it is for when you previously requested changes and now want to withdraw them. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites, such as the need for an existing request by the user.
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 carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get' implying read-only, but does not mention what happens if the pipeline is not failed, whether an empty list is returned, or if any errors occur. It also lacks details about pagination or output shape, which is a significant gap given 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.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single six-word sentence that is direct and to the point. It contains no filler or redundant information, every word contributes to the meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks usage guidance and behavioral details, which are important because there are no annotations. For a straightforward read tool, it works, but it could be more complete by mentioning when to use it and what to expect.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter, pipeline_id, has a self-explanatory name and the description adds the contextual detail that it refers to a failed pipeline. However, with 0% schema description coverage, the description does not compensate for missing details like the expected format or how to obtain the ID. It provides minimal added meaning beyond the name itself.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies a precise resource ('failed steps of a failed pipeline'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like get_pipeline_steps, which retrieves all steps, and get_pipeline_step_log, which fetches logs. The scope is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context (diagnosing a failed pipeline) but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. Sibling tools like get_pipeline_steps and get_pipeline_step_log exist, but the description does not mention them or explain when to choose this over them. The context is clear but not fully spelled out.
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?
There are no annotations provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It offers no behavioral details beyond the generic 'list' action; the term 'recent' is ambiguous and no pagination, filtering, or scope information is disclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single four-word sentence that is entirely free of redundancy and front-loads the action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of parameters and presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate, but it lacks explicit differentiation from sibling tools and does not clarify the meaning of 'recent'.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (vacuous). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists recent pipeline runs, using the specific verb 'list' and identifying the resource as 'pipeline runs'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_pipeline, which likely fetches a single pipeline.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 siblings like get_pipeline or get_pipeline_steps. The description does not mention alternatives or any criteria for 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, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral transparency. It only states the basic operation ('List open pull requests') without disclosing potential nuances like pagination, ordering, whether drafts are included, or authentication requirements. The read-only nature is implied but not explicitly stated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence: 'List open pull requests.' It is concise with zero redundant information, perfectly suited for a simple tool with no parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the low complexity (no parameters, output schema exists), the description is nearly complete for a basic list operation. However, it could have been slightly more helpful by noting that it returns only open PRs (excluding merged/closed) or by referencing the output schema. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds no parameter semantics because there are none to describe, which is appropriate. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not need to compensate for missing schema information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List open pull requests' uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('open pull requests'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_pull_request (which likely fetches a single PR) and merge_pull_request. The 'open' qualifier adds scope, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does 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 is no mention of 'use this to get an overview of open PRs' or exclusions like 'do not use for closed/merged PRs'. The usage is only implied by the tool name, not explicitly stated.
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:
Score Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Latest Blog Posts
- Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)By Om-Shree-0709 on .mcpAgent IdentityOAuth 2.1
- Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an InternBy Om-Shree-0709 on .Agent IdentityMCP SecurityOAuth Delegation
- Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)By Om-Shree-0709 on .Agentic AiPrompt InjectionWebAssembly
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/Zomino/bitbucket-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server