Retrieve repositories in a Bitbucket project or all accessible on a Server, with filters for name, workspace, and permission.
List repositories in a project (or all accessible on Server).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Name filter | |
| limit | No | Max results (default 25) | |
| start | No | Pagination start (default 0) | |
| workspace | No | Project key (required on Cloud) | |
| permission | No | e.g. REPO_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 of behavioral disclosure. It adds one useful trait (host-dependent scoping: project-scoped or all accessible on Server), but says nothing about pagination behavior, permission requirements, result ordering, or authentication. For a 5-parameter listing tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a substantial gap.
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 filler; the core purpose arrives immediately. The parenthetical is slightly compressed but still earns its place by conveying the Server-scope behavior.
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?
All parameters are optional and there is no output schema, so the description need not explain returns. However, with no annotations and a Cloud/Server distinction that changes required parameters, the definition should say more about defaults, pagination, and platform-dependent behavior than one clause.
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 five parameters are already documented in the schema, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the host qualifier. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 specific verb (List) and resource (repositories) with a scope qualifier distinguishing project-scoped from all-accessible-on-Server. No sibling tool shares this resource, so differentiation is largely unnecessary, but the description never says how it relates to list_projects. Clear and specific, just 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?
Gives no when-to-use guidance, no alternatives, and no prerequisites. The parenthetical hints that behavior differs by host, but it never states which condition (project vs Server-wide) the caller should choose or that `workspace` is required on Cloud. The agent must infer all of this from the schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.