Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Bitbucket MCP Server

Bitbucket MCP Server

by ATERCATES
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

convertTodraft

Change a pull request to draft status in Bitbucket to signal it is not ready for review or merging. Provide workspace, repo slug, and pull request ID to update the PR.

Instructions

Convert a regular pull request to draft status

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "workspace": "<workspace>",
      "repo_slug": "<repo_slug>",
      "pull_request_id": "<pull_request_id>"
    },
    "name": "convertTodraft"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
repo_slugYesRepository slug
workspaceYesBitbucket workspace name
pull_request_idYesPull request ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.7

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose side effects (e.g., reversibility, impact on approvals/comments, permissions). It only states 'convert', which implies mutation but lacks detail on behavior beyond the operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single concise sentence with no extraneous information, efficient for a simple tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimal. It lacks details on permissions, reversibility, or restrictions (e.g., only open PRs), but the tool is simple enough that the description is adequate.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for all three parameters (workspace, repo_slug, pull_request_id). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Convert a regular pull request to draft status' clearly states the verb (convert) and resource (pull request to draft), and it distinguishes from sibling tools like createDraftPullRequest and publishDraftPullRequest.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., PR must exist, must not already be draft) or when not to use it.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools