Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Bitbucket MCP Server

Bitbucket MCP Server

by ATERCATES
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

getProjectBranchingModelSettings

Retrieve a project's branching model settings to identify branch types, prefixes, and merge strategies. Use this to align repository workflows with project-defined practices.

Instructions

Get the branching model config for a project

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>",
      "project_key": "<project_key>"
    },
    "name": "getProjectBranchingModelSettings"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
workspaceYesBitbucket workspace name
project_keyYesProject key

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 are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It only states 'Get', implying a read-only operation, but fails to disclose any behavioral traits (e.g., idempotency, rate limits, auth requirements) or what the response contains.

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 with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a straightforward getter tool, though it could be slightly more informative.

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 lack of output schema and the presence of many sibling tools for branching models, the description is incomplete. It does not clarify what 'branching model config' encompasses or how the output differs from other getter tools, leaving an agent underinformed.

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?

The input schema provides complete descriptions for both parameters (workspace and project_key), so the description adds no additional meaning. With 100% schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource as 'branching model config for a project'. It is clear in what it does, though it does not differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'getProjectBranchingModel' or 'getRepositoryBranchingModelSettings', which could cause confusion.

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 such as 'getProjectBranchingModel' or 'getRepositoryBranchingModelSettings'. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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