Bitbucket MCP Server

updatePullRequest

Modify an existing pull request's title, description, reviewers, draft status, or destination branch in Bitbucket.

Instructions

Update 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": "updatePullRequest"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`draft`	No	Whether the pull request is a draft
`title`	No	New pull request title
`repo_slug`	Yes	Repository slug
`reviewers`	No	List of reviewer UUIDs (e.g., '{04776764-62c7-453b-b97e-302f60395ceb}')
`workspace`	Yes	Bitbucket workspace name
`description`	No	New pull request description
`destination`	No	New destination branch name
`pull_request_id`	Yes	Pull request ID
`close_source_branch`	No	Whether to close source branch after merge

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.7May 26, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose that only provided fields are updated, whether it is idempotent, or any permission requirements. The behavior is hinted by the schema but not described.

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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the purpose. However, it sacrifices informativeness for brevity; a slightly longer description could add value without being verbose.

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 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., the updated pull request object) or any side effects. The schema covers parameters well, but the description should provide higher-level context.

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 adds no extra meaning beyond the schema parameter descriptions. The schema already describes each parameter sufficiently.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Update a pull request' clearly indicates the verb and resource, but lacks specificity to distinguish from sibling tools like convertTodraft, publishDraftPullRequest, or even createPullRequest (which also updates state). The verb 'update' is generic.

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 like createPullRequest, convertTodraft, or approvePullRequest. No context about typical workflows or prerequisites.

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

Deploy Server