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 effectively describes key behaviors: it requires Bitbucket credentials (auth needs), includes pagination details, and specifies the return format (Markdown with branch details). However, it doesn't mention rate limits, error handling, or whether it's read-only, leaving some gaps.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by key features (filtering, sorting, pagination) and essential details (return format, auth requirements). Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, key behaviors, and auth needs, but lacks details on error cases, rate limits, and exact output structure. Since there's no output schema, more clarity on return values would improve completeness, but it's adequate for basic 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by mentioning filtering, sorting, and pagination, but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain query syntax or sort options in more detail). Baseline 3 is appropriate as 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 ('Lists') and resource ('branches in a repository'), specifying the exact action. It distinguishes from siblings like bb_get_repo (gets repository details) or bb_diff_branches (compares branches), making the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 mentioning filtering, sorting, and pagination, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't clarify if this should be used instead of bb_search for branch-related queries or how it differs from bb_ls_repos for listing repositories. The guidance is present but not comprehensive.

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