Atlassian Bitbucket MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behaviors: it describes the return format (formatted Markdown with specific fields), pagination mechanism (cursor acts as page number), authentication requirement (Bitbucket credentials), and filtering capabilities. It doesn't mention rate limits or error conditions, but covers most essential operational 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 appropriately sized at 4 sentences, front-loading the core purpose. Each sentence adds value: purpose, pagination explanation, filtering options, return format, and authentication requirement. Slightly verbose in explaining cursor functionality, but overall efficient.

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 read-only tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description provides good coverage: it explains what the tool does, how to use pagination, filtering options, return format, and authentication needs. The main gap is lack of output schema, but the description compensates by detailing the return format. Could benefit from more explicit sibling differentiation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it mentions the optional filtering via revision and path, but doesn't provide additional context about parameter interactions or usage patterns that aren't already in the schema descriptions.

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 ('retrieves') and resource ('commit history for a repository'), specifying the exact operation. It distinguishes from siblings like bb_get_file (file content) or bb_get_pr (pull request details) by focusing on commit history specifically.

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 implies usage when commit history is needed, mentioning filtering capabilities. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like bb_diff_commits (which compares commits) or bb_search (which might search commits). No clear exclusions or prerequisites beyond credentials are provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.