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 and does so effectively. It mentions authentication requirements ('Requires Atlassian Bitbucket credentials configured'), pagination behavior ('Supports pagination via limit and cursor'), and output format ('Returns search results as Markdown'). It also clarifies the search scope limitation ('Only searches within the specified workspaceSlug').

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. Each subsequent sentence adds useful information about parameters, authentication, and output. There's minimal redundancy, though the sentence about filtering could be slightly more concise.

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 complexity (9 parameters, search functionality) and lack of output schema, the description does a good job covering key aspects: purpose, usage context, authentication, pagination, and output format. It could be slightly more complete by mentioning error cases or rate limits, but it's largely adequate for the agent to understand and use the tool.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds some context about what the parameters do (e.g., 'Specify scope to narrow your search') but doesn't provide significant additional semantic value beyond what's in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is high.

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 with specific verbs ('searches Bitbucket for content matching the provided query') and resources ('repositories, code, pull requests, or other content'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like bb_get_repo or bb_ls_prs by emphasizing its search functionality across multiple content types rather than retrieving specific items.

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 for when to use this tool ('to find repositories, code, pull requests, or other content in Bitbucket') and mentions scoping options. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools (e.g., when to use bb_get_repo instead for direct repository retrieval).

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