Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Bitbucket MCP Server

Bitbucket MCP Server

by ATERCATES
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

requestChanges

Request changes on a Bitbucket pull request by specifying the workspace, repo slug, and pull request ID, signaling that revisions are needed before approval.

Instructions

Request changes 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>"
    },
    "name": "requestChanges"
  }
}

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

C2.7/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits (e.g., whether the action is reversible, required permissions, or side effects) beyond the bare action of requesting changes.

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, maximally concise, but it lacks substantive information beyond the tool's name, making it too minimal to be highly useful.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple tool with no output schema or annotations, the description should at minimum state the effect of requesting changes (e.g., blocking merge), but it provides no such context, leaving the agent uninformed.

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 clear descriptions for all three parameters (workspace, repo_slug, pull_request_id), so the description adds no additional meaning; 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 'Request changes on a pull request' uses a specific verb+resource pair that clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like approvePullRequest, declinePullRequest, and mergePullRequest.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as addPullRequestComment or declinePullRequest, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the name alone.

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