Atlassian Bitbucket MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It successfully communicates several important behavioral traits: the mutation nature ('Creates'), authentication requirements ('Requires Bitbucket credentials with write permissions'), return format ('Returns the newly created pull request details as formatted Markdown'), and side effects ('Set closeSourceBranch to true to automatically delete the source branch after merging'). It doesn't mention rate limits or error conditions, but covers most essential behavioral aspects.

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 efficiently structured with zero wasted sentences. It front-loads the core purpose, then covers parameter guidance, return values, and authentication requirements in a logical flow. Every sentence adds essential information, making it appropriately sized for a 7-parameter creation tool.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does an excellent job covering the essential context: purpose, parameters, authentication, return format, and side effects. The main gap is the lack of explicit error handling or rate limit information, but given the comprehensive parameter coverage and behavioral transparency, it's nearly complete for practical use.

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 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all 7 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it mentions the default workspace behavior for workspaceSlug and the Markdown support for description, but these are already covered in the schema descriptions. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Creates a new pull request'), identifies the target resource ('in a repository'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like bb_update_pr (which modifies existing PRs) and bb_get_pr (which retrieves PRs). It provides a complete verb+resource+scope statement that differentiates this creation tool from other PR-related operations.

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 clear context about when to use this tool (creating new pull requests) and mentions the default workspace behavior. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast when to use this versus alternatives like bb_update_pr for modifying existing PRs or bb_add_pr_comment for adding comments. The guidance is helpful 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.