Bitbucket Server MCP

browse_files

Browse the file tree of a repository at a specified path and revision using Bitbucket Server MCP. Supports pagination and optional branch, tag, or commit reference.

Instructions

Browse the file tree of a repository at a given path and revision.

Args: project_key: The project key. repo_slug: The repository slug. path: Path within the repository to browse (empty for root). at: Optional branch name, tag, or commit ID (defaults to default branch). start: Page start index (default 0). limit: Number of results per page (default 25).

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": {
      "project_key": "<project_key>",
      "repo_slug": "<repo_slug>"
    },
    "name": "browse_files"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`project_key`	Yes
`repo_slug`	Yes
`path`	No
`at`	No
`start`	No
`limit`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.7.0May 28, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided. The description implies a read operation (browsing) but does not explicitly state read-only nature, permissions, or error behaviors. It adds only basic parameter explanations.

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?

Front-loaded with a clear first sentence stating purpose. The parameter list is necessary given the lack of schema descriptions, but it is somewhat verbose. Structured and easy to read.

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

Completeness3/5

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

With an output schema present, the description need not cover returns. However, it lacks comparative context with sibling tools (e.g., browse_files vs list_files) and does not mention read-only behavior, leaving the agent with incomplete guidance.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, but the description provides clear, functional explanations for all six parameters (project_key, repo_slug, path, at, start, limit), adding meaning beyond the schema's type/default fields.

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 clearly states the tool browses the file tree of a repository at a given path and revision. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'list_files', which might have overlapping functionality.

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 'list_files' or 'find_file'. The description lacks context about prerequisites or scenarios.

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

Deploy Server