Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Bitbucket MCP Server

Bitbucket MCP Server

by ATERCATES
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

publishDraftPullRequest

Convert a Bitbucket draft pull request into a published state so it can be reviewed, discussed, and merged.

Instructions

Publish a draft pull request to make it ready for review

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": "publishDraftPullRequest"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
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

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the operation is reversible (e.g., can be converted back to draft via convertToDraft), permissions required, or side effects like triggering notifications. The description is too sparse.

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 sentence, very concise and front-loaded. While it could be slightly more detailed, it earns its place without unnecessary words.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain prerequisites (e.g., PR must be in draft state), expected results, or error conditions. More context is needed for effective use.

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 each parameter (workspace, repo_slug, pull_request_id) already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning or usage hints beyond the schema.

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 the action ('Publish a draft pull request') and the result ('make it ready for review'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like createDraftPullRequest or convertToDraft.

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 the tool is used when a draft PR exists and needs to be opened for review, but provides no explicit guidance on when to avoid using it or alternatives (e.g., createPullRequest for non-draft PRs).

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