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 the return format (formatted Markdown), specific content included (owner, main branch, comment/task counts, recent pull requests, links), and authentication requirements (Bitbucket credentials). It doesn't mention rate limits, pagination, or error behavior, but provides substantial 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.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences with zero waste: first states the core purpose and parameters, second describes the return format and authentication requirement. Every element earns its place, and the most important information (what it retrieves) is front-loaded.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good completeness: it covers purpose, parameters, return format, content details, and authentication. It could mention error cases or rate limits, but given the 100% schema coverage and clear behavioral disclosure, it's mostly complete for this complexity level.

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 fully documents both parameters. The description mentions the parameters by name but doesn't add meaning beyond what the schema provides about their purpose or usage. 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 verb 'retrieves' and resource 'detailed information for a specific repository', specifying it's identified by workspaceSlug and repoSlug. It distinguishes from siblings like bb_ls_repos (list) and bb_get_workspace (different resource) by focusing on comprehensive details for a single repository.

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: use this tool when you need comprehensive repository details for a specific repository. It implicitly distinguishes from bb_ls_repos (listing multiple) and bb_get_workspace (workspace-level info). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention specific alternatives like bb_get_pr for PR details.

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