Lists all repositories in a Bitbucket workspace with automatic pagination. Resolves the workspace from an explicit argument, environment override, or active profile.
Lists every repository in a workspace, fully paginated. Resolves workspace via the standard precedence (explicit argument > BITBUCKET_WORKSPACE env override > active profile default > error) if not provided.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| workspace | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description extends this by disclosing two important behaviors: the result is fully paginated, and workspace resolution follows a precise precedence chain ending in an error. This gives the agent useful behavioral context beyond what the schema or annotations provide.
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?
Two sentences with no filler: the first states the core function, the second explains workspace resolution. The most important information is front-loaded, and nothing in the description merely repeats the annotations or schema.
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?
This is a simple single-parameter read-only list tool, and the description covers the key invocation details: full pagination, optional workspace, and resolution/error behavior. Given the annotations and the low complexity, nothing material is missing for an agent to select and call the tool correctly.
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 0%, but the description compensates by explaining that `workspace` is optional and resolved through a defined precedence chain. This gives meaningful semantics to the parameter beyond the bare string schema, even though it does not enumerate accepted workspace identifiers.
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 a specific verb ('Lists'), a specific resource ('repository'), and a clear scope ('in a workspace'). The phrase 'every repository' combined with 'fully paginated' also makes the exhaustive nature explicit, which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like get_repository and list_workspaces.
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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: when you want the complete set of repositories in a workspace, with pagination handled. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the 'every repository' phrasing and the workspace resolution details make the intended usage obvious without needing to inspect other tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.