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 and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: authentication requirements ('Requires Bitbucket credentials'), pagination behavior ('Supports pagination'), output format ('Returns a formatted Markdown list'), and default workspace behavior. It doesn't mention rate limits or error conditions, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 efficiently structured with three sentences: first states purpose and scope, second covers key parameters and pagination, third specifies output format and auth requirements. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.

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 listing tool with no output schema, the description is quite complete - it covers purpose, key parameters, pagination, output format, and authentication. It could mention error cases or rate limits for a perfect score, but given the tool's complexity and lack of annotations, it provides sufficient context for effective 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 fully documents all 6 parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it mentions filtering by state and text search but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details. Baseline 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 specific action ('Lists pull requests'), resource ('within a repository'), and scope ('filters by state and supports text search'). It distinguishes from siblings like bb_get_pr (which retrieves a single PR) and bb_search (which is more general).

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 about when to use this tool (listing PRs with filtering) and mentions workspace defaults, but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools (e.g., bb_get_pr for single PR details).

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