Bitbucket MCP Server

listBranches

List branches in a Bitbucket repository. Use query filters and pagination to find specific branches or navigate large repositories.

Instructions

List branches 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": "listBranches"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`q`	No	Query string to filter branches
`all`	No	When true (and no page is provided), automatically follows Bitbucket next links to return all items up to 1000.
`page`	No	Bitbucket page number to fetch (1-based).
`pagelen`	No	Number of items per page (Bitbucket pagelen). Defaults to 10 and caps at 100.
`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

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as pagination defaults, permission requirements, or what the response includes. The minimal text leaves the agent uninformed about how the tool behaves.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded, with no wasted words. However, it lacks supportive context for the parameters, slightly reducing utility compared to a more informative one-liner.

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?

No output schema specified, and the description omits any explanation of return values (e.g., branch names, metadata). Given 6 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete for an agent to reliably use this tool.

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% with detailed parameter descriptions (e.g., pagelen limits, all behavior). The tool description adds no new meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 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 'List branches in a repository' clearly identifies the action (list) and resource (branches), distinguishing this tool from siblings like listRepositories and listTags.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., getBranch for a single branch), nor any context about pagination or filtering despite relevant parameters existing in the schema.

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

Deploy Server