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 adds valuable behavioral context: it discloses authentication requirements ('Requires Bitbucket credentials'), performance implications ('may increase response time'), output format ('formatted Markdown'), and default behavior for workspaceSlug. However, it doesn't mention rate limits or error conditions.

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 and front-loaded with core functionality, though slightly verbose with repetition of default values already in schema. Every sentence adds value: first states purpose, second explains defaults, third describes parameters, fourth covers output format, fifth mentions authentication.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description does well to cover authentication, performance implications, output format, and parameter effects. It could improve by explicitly mentioning what happens on invalid inputs or error cases, but provides sufficient context for a read operation with rich parameters.

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 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond schema: it mentions workspaceSlug default behavior and the effect of includeComments/includeFullDiff, but doesn't provide additional semantic context. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does 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 verb 'retrieves' and resource 'detailed information about a specific pull request', specifying it includes PR details, status, reviewers, and diff statistics. It distinguishes from siblings like bb_ls_prs (list) and bb_get_repo (different resource).

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 by specifying it retrieves detailed information for a specific PR identified by prId, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives like bb_ls_prs (for listing) or bb_get_repo (for repository info). It mentions workspaceSlug defaults but lacks explicit comparison to sibling tools.

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