Retrieve recent pipeline runs from Bitbucket, filtering by status or branch to monitor CI/CD results and identify failed builds.
List recent pipeline runs, optionally filtered by status or branch
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| sort | No | Sort field, e.g. '-created_on' for newest first | |
| pagelen | No | ||
| repo_slug | No | ||
| workspace | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden, but it only says 'List recent pipeline runs.' It doesn't mention default behavior, pagination, result ordering, error cases, or that no mutations occur. This is thin for a real API call.
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 definition is a single short sentence with the main intent front-loadedcars. It loses a point because the misleading 'status or branch' clause could have been clarified or omitted.
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?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description must carry the operational context. It fails to specify the likely-required workspace/repo_slug context, sort defaults, pagination behavior, and output shape. The mismatch between the described filters and the actual schema makes it unsafe for an agent to use confidently.
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 only 20%, and the description's 'status or branch' filter hint is not represented in the schema at all—there are no status or branch properties. Meanwhile, the actual parameters (workspace, repo_slug, page, pagelen) are left unexplained, so the description actively adds confusion rather than clarifying inputs.
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 operation: 'List recent pipeline runs' with optional status/branch filtering. It is a specific verb+resource and the plural 'runs' distinguishes it from single-run tools, but it never names or contrasts with siblings explicitly.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like getPipelineRun or runPipeline, and no context about required parameters (e.g., workspace/repo_slug) or scenarios where the status/branch filter is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.