Bitbucket MCP Server

mergePullRequest

Merge a Bitbucket pull request by specifying workspace, repository, and pull request ID. Configure merge strategy, commit message, and close source branch options.

Instructions

Merge 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>"
    },
    "name": "mergePullRequest"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`message`	No	Merge commit message
`repo_slug`	Yes	Repository slug
`workspace`	Yes	Bitbucket workspace name
`merge_strategy`	No	Merge strategy
`pull_request_id`	Yes	Pull request ID
`close_source_branch`	No	Whether to close the source branch after merge

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.7May 26, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behaviors but only states the action. It does not mention side effects like source branch closure, conflict handling, or required approvals, leaving the agent underinformed.

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 extremely concise (4 words) and directly states the purpose. While it lacks structure or detail, it wastes no words and is easily understood.

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 description is too minimal for a tool with 6 parameters and no output schema. It fails to explain merge strategies, the effect of the close_source_branch parameter, or what happens upon merge (success/failure/status).

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 tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what is already in the parameter descriptions; it neither helps nor hinders.

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 'Merge a pull request' clearly states the action and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like approvePullRequest or declinePullRequest. However, it lacks specificity about the target branch or prerequisites.

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 like updatePullRequest or convertTodraft. There is no mention of conditions or prerequisites for merging.

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

Deploy Server