Bitbucket MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'optional filters' but doesn't describe key behaviors: whether results are paginated (implied by 'start' parameter but not explained), default ordering, rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output looks like. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to use it effectively.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('List pull requests for a repository') and adds qualifying information ('with optional filters'). There's no wasted language or redundancy—every word serves a clear purpose.

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 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like pagination, ordering, or output format, nor does it provide usage context. While the schema covers parameters well, the overall tool understanding remains incomplete for an agent.

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 schema already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly with descriptions, defaults, and enums. The description adds minimal value beyond stating 'optional filters'—it doesn't explain parameter interactions, filtering logic, or provide usage examples. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 action ('List pull requests') and resource ('for a repository'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_pull_request' (singular) by indicating it returns multiple items, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other list tools like 'list_branches' or 'list_pr_commits'.

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 mentions 'optional filters' but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't specify when to choose this over 'get_pull_request' for a single PR, or how it relates to 'list_pr_commits' or other list tools. No context about prerequisites or typical use cases is given.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.