List all repositories in a Bitbucket workspace, with optional partial name search and pagination to manage large result sets.
List all repositories in the configured workspace
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number | |
| search | No | Filter repos by name (partial match) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.0.0-developmentDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds a useful scope qualifier ('configured workspace') but does not clarify pagination behavior, and 'all repositories' is potentially misleading given the page parameter. Read-only intent is implicit in the verb 'List', but details like output shape and ordering are left unstated.
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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler words. Every term ('List', 'all', 'repositories', 'configured workspace') contributes meaning. It is compact, scannable, and appropriate for a simple list operation.
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 no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves gaps around pagination and the exact shape of returned repository objects. The phrase 'all repositories' is ambiguous with the optional page parameter—an agent may not know whether one call returns everything or requires iterating pages. It is adequate for a simple listing but not fully complete for safe autonomous invocation.
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 provides 100% description coverage for both 'page' and 'search', so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific context beyond what the schema already documents, such as how search interacts with the 'all repositories' claim. It does not harm clarity, but it also does not elevate it.
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 uses the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'repositories' and the scope 'configured workspace'. It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools such as list_branches and list_pull_requests, which operate on different resources. The purpose is unambiguous and needs no inference.
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?
No explicit guidance is provided about when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions. The context of sibling tools strongly implies that this is the tool for listing repositories, but that is inferred rather than stated. The description would benefit from a brief note such as 'use this for workspace-level repository listing, not for branch or PR listing'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.