Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Bitbucket MCP Server

Bitbucket MCP Server

by ATERCATES
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

getEffectiveRepositoryBranchingModel

Retrieve the effective branching model for a Bitbucket repository by providing workspace and repo slug.

Instructions

Get the effective branching model for 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": "getEffectiveRepositoryBranchingModel"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
repo_slugYesRepository slug
workspaceYesBitbucket workspace name

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.7

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations exist, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, permissions required, or any side effects. The agent must infer that it is a get operation but lacks confirmation.

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, concise sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose. No unnecessary words, though slightly more context could be added without reducing conciseness.

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 complexity of branching models and the presence of multiple sibling tools, the description lacks details to fully understand the tool's role. The term 'effective' is unexplained, and there is no output schema to clarify the return value.

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 100%, with both parameters 'workspace' and 'repo_slug' described in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline.

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 'Get' and the resource 'effective branching model for a repository'. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like getRepositoryBranchingModel or getProjectBranchingModel, leaving ambiguity about what 'effective' means.

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 versus alternatives. There is no mention of context or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent without decision support.

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