Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Bitbucket MCP Server

Bitbucket MCP Server

by ATERCATES
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

getPullRequestTask

Retrieve a specific task from a pull request in Bitbucket using workspace, repository slug, pull request ID, and task ID.

Instructions

Get a specific task on a pull request

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>",
      "task_id": "<task_id>"
    },
    "name": "getPullRequestTask"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
task_idYesTask ID
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

B3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. However, it only says 'Get a specific task', omitting details like authentication needs, error handling, or whether it returns null for missing tasks. This under-specification leaves the agent uninformed.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is a single sentence, which is concise but extremely brief. While it avoids verbosity, it sacrifices useful detail that could fit in a few more words. Structure is fine but incomplete.

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?

The tool is simple (get a specific task), but with no output schema, the description should at least hint at the response structure or potential errors. It does not, leaving the agent with insufficient context for reliable invocation.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the already clear parameter names and schema descriptions. It does not compensate for any gaps.

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 clearly states 'Get a specific task on a pull request', which specifies the verb (Get) and resource (task on a pull request). It distinguishes from sibling tools like getPullRequestTasks (plural) and updatePullRequestTask.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it state prerequisites or conditions. Sibling tools are present but no differentiation is given.

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