Toggle a pull request's draft flag on or off while preserving its title, description, and full reviewer list across the required PUT update.
Turn a pull request's draft flag on or off. Preserves title, description and the full reviewer list across the required PUT (Bitbucket PUT replaces the whole resource).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| repo | Yes | Repository slug, e.g. sigma-skills | |
| draft | Yes | ||
| 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?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden, and it delivers the single most important behavioral fact: the underlying PUT replaces the whole resource, so the tool re-sends title, description and reviewers to avoid clobbering them. Still missing is any statement about required permissions or what the call returns.
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?
Two sentences, zero filler, with the action first and the data-preservation caveat immediately after. Every clause earns its place.
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 four-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers the main hazard (destructive PUT semantics) well. It stops short of describing the response or confirming whether the call fails on stale data.
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 only 50% — 'id' and 'draft' are undocumented in the schema. The description clarifies 'draft' as the PR's draft flag but never identifies 'id' as the pull request ID, so it only partially compensates for the gap.
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 and target ('Turn a pull request's draft flag on or off'), which no sibling tool does — the siblings cover listing, fetching, merging, and commenting. An agent can route to it without opening the schema.
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 implied by the operation itself, but there is no explicit guidance on prerequisites or alternatives, e.g. calling bitbucket_get_pull_request first to read the current draft state before flipping it. Adequate but leaves inference to the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.