Retrieves blocker comments and tasks on a Bitbucket pull request, returning each task's ID and OPEN or RESOLVED state so review blockers can be tracked.
List the tasks (blocker comments) on a pull request with their OPEN/RESOLVED state and ids.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| repo | Yes | Repository slug, e.g. sigma-skills | |
| project | Yes | Bitbucket project key, e.g. KD_SIGMA |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the meaningful payload shape (each task comes with OPEN/RESOLVED state and an id), which tells the agent what it can decide on, but it says nothing about pagination, result size, permission requirements, or whether state can be changed here.
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 resource and the returned fields are stated in the first pass an agent reads.
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 simple three-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what is fetched and what fields are returned (state and ids). Only pagination and ordering behavior are missing, which is a minor gap at this complexity.
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 coverage is 67%, with 'id' left undocumented in the schema; the phrase 'on a pull request' usefully clarifies that id refers to the pull request id, alongside project and repo. Beyond that mapping it adds no format or constraint detail, which is acceptable given the moderate 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 gives a specific verb and resource ('List the tasks (blocker comments) on a pull request') and even resolves a terminology ambiguity by equating 'tasks' with 'blocker comments'. It is clearly distinct from mutation siblings like bitbucket_resolve_task or bitbucket_add_comment, though it does not explicitly name the closest read sibling (bitbucket_get_activities).
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the read path for reviewing open/resolved tasks on a PR, but there is no statement of when to prefer it over bitbucket_get_activities or bitbucket_get_pull_request. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.