Bitbucket MCP Server

createTag

Create a new tag on a specific commit in a Bitbucket repository. Use it to mark releases, milestones, or version snapshots.

Instructions

Create a new tag in a repository

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>",
      "name": "<name>",
      "target": "<target>"
    },
    "name": "createTag"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	Name of the new tag
`target`	Yes
`message`	No	Optional tag message
`repo_slug`	Yes	Repository slug
`workspace`	Yes	Bitbucket workspace name

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.7May 26, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must convey all behavioral traits. It only states 'create a new tag' without explaining any side effects, error conditions, or permissions. It lacks details on what happens if the tag exists or how the 'target' must reference an existing commit.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single sentence, concise and front-loaded with the action. It is not verbose, though it could add more context without becoming too long.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the tool has 5 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description is too brief. It does not explain the return value, error scenarios, or how to correctly structure the 'target' parameter. Important context for a mutation tool is missing.

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 description coverage is 80%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the input schema provides, but it does not contradict the schema either.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the verb 'create' and the resource 'tag' in a repository. It distinguishes well from sibling tools like listTags, getTag, and createBranch, but could explicitly mention Bitbucket for clarity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool, prerequisites (e.g., permissions), or alternatives. The description does not mention that tags are typically used for releases or that the tool will fail if the tag already exists.

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

Deploy Server