List Bitbucket repositories in a workspace using provided credentials and workspace ID, with an optional limit to control the number of returned results.
List Bitbucket repositories in a workspace.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Repos to return (max 100, default 25) | |
| username | Yes | Bitbucket username | |
| workspace | Yes | Workspace id | |
| app_password | Yes | Bitbucket app password |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.11Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds nothing beyond that: no pagination behavior, no rate-limit or auth-requirement note (the tool demands a username and app password), and no indication of what a returned repository entry contains.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler or repetition. It is efficient, though the efficiency comes partly from saying almost nothing rather than from tight editing of substantive content.
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 read-only list tool with complete schema coverage, full annotations, and no output schema to explain, so the minimum is met. However, the credential requirement (username + app password) and the fact that results are paginated/capped are not surfaced anywhere in prose, leaving the agent to discover them from the schema alone.
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 100%, so all four parameters including the limit cap (max 100, default 25) are already documented in the schema. The description's phrase 'in a workspace' merely restates the required workspace parameter and adds no format or semantics beyond it. Baseline 3 applies.
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 names a specific verb and resource (List Bitbucket repositories) and scopes it to a workspace, which distinguishes it from bitbucket_get_repo (singular fetch) and bitbucket_list_pull_requests (different resource). It does not explicitly name those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this versus bitbucket_get_repo or bitbucket_list_pull_requests, and no mention of prerequisites such as needing a Bitbucket username plus app password. Usage is only inferable from the verb 'List'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.