Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Bitbucket MCP Server

Bitbucket MCP Server

by ATERCATES
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

getPendingReviewPRs

Find open pull requests in Bitbucket that need your review. This tool lists PRs where you are a reviewer but have not yet approved.

Instructions

List all open pull requests in the workspace where the authenticated user is a reviewer and has not yet approved.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "getPendingReviewPRs"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMaximum number of PRs to return (optional)
workspaceNoBitbucket workspace name (optional, defaults to BITBUCKET_WORKSPACE)
repositoryListNoList of repository slugs to check (optional)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.7

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

In the absence of annotations, the description clearly conveys the filtering logic (open, reviewer, not approved) and implies a read-only operation. However, it does not detail pagination behavior, rate limits, or default limits.

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 sentence with zero wasted words. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and clearly structured.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a read-only list tool with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the filtering criteria. It does not mention return format, but that is standard. Lacks details on default behavior when limit or repositoryList are omitted.

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% and each parameter (workspace, limit, repositoryList) already has a descriptive schema comment. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline of 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 uses a specific verb 'List' and clearly defines the resource as 'open pull requests where the authenticated user is a reviewer and has not yet approved.' This uniquely distinguishes it from sibling tools like getPullRequests or approvePullRequest.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage for retrieving pending review PRs, but does not explicitly state when to use or not use this tool versus alternatives like getPullRequests (which may list all PRs) or approvePullRequest. No exclusions or exact scenarios are provided.

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