Bitbucket MCP Server

reopenComment

Reopens a resolved comment thread on a Bitbucket pull request to allow continued discussion.

Instructions

Reopen a resolved comment thread 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>",
      "comment_id": "<comment_id>"
    },
    "name": "reopenComment"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`repo_slug`	Yes	Repository slug
`workspace`	Yes	Bitbucket workspace name
`comment_id`	Yes	Comment ID
`pull_request_id`	Yes	Pull request ID

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, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It only states the action of reopening; missing details on side effects, permissions, or reversibility. This is minimal for a state-changing operation.

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 conveys the core purpose without fluff. However, it could be slightly expanded to include key constraints without losing conciseness.

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?

With no annotations or output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the outcome, prerequisites, or how it integrates with related tools like resolveComment. More detail is needed for a state-altering operation.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the parameter names; it merely implies the function's purpose without elaborating on inputs.

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 (reopen) and the target (resolved comment thread). It uses a specific verb-resource combination and implicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool 'resolveComment'.

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., editing the comment or resolving again). The description does not specify prerequisites or limitations.

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

Deploy Server