List accessible Bitbucket projects or workspaces with filters for name and permission, supporting pagination.
List accessible projects/workspaces.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Name filter | |
| limit | No | Max results (default 25) | |
| start | No | Pagination start (default 0) | |
| permission | No | e.g. PROJECT_READ |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only, permission-scoped listing via 'accessible' but says nothing about pagination behavior, result counts, ordering, or what happens with the permission filter.
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 no wasted words. However, the extreme brevity edges into under-specification rather than optimal conciseness for a 4-parameter tool.
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?
For a tool with four optional parameters, no required params, and no output schema, the description omits pagination guidance, the meaning of the permission filter, and any result shape hints. It is too thin to fully guide 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the four parameters (name, limit, start, permission) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning such as filter matching semantics or how permission interacts with 'accessible'.
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?
States a clear verb ('List') and resource ('projects/workspaces') with the scope qualifier 'accessible'. It does not distinguish itself from the nearest sibling (list_repositories) or explain how projects differ from 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?
No indication of when to use this tool versus list_repositories or any other listing tool, nor any mention of prerequisites or when the result would be empty. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.