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 successfully describes several important behavioral traits: authentication requirements ('Requires Bitbucket credentials'), pagination behavior ('Supports sorting via sort and pagination via limit and cursor'), and output format ('Returns a formatted Markdown list with comprehensive details'). It also explains the default workspace fallback mechanism. The main gap is lack of information about 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 efficiently structured and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first states the main action, the second explains the default workspace behavior, the third covers filtering options, the fourth addresses sorting and pagination, and the final two sentences describe output format and authentication requirements. There's no redundant or unnecessary information.

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 list/read operation with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description provides good contextual completeness. It covers authentication requirements, filtering options, sorting, pagination, and output format. The main gap is the lack of output schema, which means the agent doesn't know the exact structure of the returned data, though the description mentions it's a 'formatted Markdown list with comprehensive details.' Given the complexity and lack of annotations, it does well but could benefit from more detail about error cases or rate limits.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds some context about the workspaceSlug default behavior and mentions that query searches 'name/description', but doesn't provide significant additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 ('repositories within a workspace'), making the purpose immediately apparent. It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like bb_get_repo (which gets a single repository) and bb_ls_workspaces (which lists workspaces instead of repositories). The description specifies it returns a formatted Markdown list with comprehensive details, further clarifying the output format.

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: to list repositories with optional filtering by role, project key, or query string. It explains the default workspace behavior when workspaceSlug is omitted. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools (like bb_search for broader searches or bb_get_repo for single repository details).

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