Atlassian Bitbucket MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it's a read operation ('Retrieves'), requires authentication ('Requires Bitbucket credentials'), and describes the output format ('formatted Markdown, including membership, projects, and key metadata'). It doesn't mention rate limits, error handling, or pagination, but covers essential aspects for a read tool with 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.

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

The description is concise and front-loaded: it starts with the core action ('Retrieves detailed information'), specifies the parameter, describes the output, and ends with prerequisites. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured for an AI agent.

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 the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no nested objects, no output schema) and no annotations, the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, authentication needs, and output format. However, it doesn't detail error cases or exact return structure beyond 'formatted Markdown', which could be more specific for a tool with no output schema.

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%, with the parameter 'workspaceSlug' well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by reinforcing that it's for 'a workspace identified by workspaceSlug' and must be 'from your Bitbucket account'. This aligns with the schema but doesn't provide additional semantic context, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's purpose: 'Retrieves detailed information for a workspace' with specific resources mentioned (membership, projects, key metadata). It distinguishes from sibling tools like bb_ls_workspaces (which likely lists workspaces) by focusing on detailed retrieval for a specific workspace. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other workspace-related tools that might not exist in the sibling list.

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 context by specifying 'Requires Bitbucket credentials to be configured' and that it retrieves 'detailed information' for a workspace identified by workspaceSlug. It doesn't provide explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance or name alternatives (e.g., compared to bb_ls_workspaces for listing vs. detailed view). The usage is clear but lacks explicit differentiation from siblings.

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