Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Bitbucket Server MCP

Bitbucket Server MCP

by ManpreetShuann
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

create_branch

Create a new branch in a repository from a specified commit or branch. Provide project key, repo slug, branch name, and start point.

Instructions

Create a new branch in a repository.

Args: project_key: The project key. repo_slug: The repository slug. name: Name for the new branch. start_point: Commit ID or branch name to branch from.

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": "<name>",
      "start_point": "<start_point>"
    },
    "name": "create_branch"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_keyYes
repo_slugYes
nameYes
start_pointYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.7.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the action and lists parameters, but does not disclose side effects, permissions, error conditions, or behavior on conflicts.

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 short and front-loaded with the purpose, listing parameters in a clear bullet format. Every sentence is useful, though the parameter explanations could be more integrated.

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?

The description does not mention the output schema, return values, error handling, or prerequisites. With no annotations, the description should provide more operational context for this creation tool.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description provides brief explanations for all four parameters (e.g., 'start_point: Commit ID or branch name to branch from'). These add some meaning beyond the schema, but are minimal and lack detail.

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 'Create a new branch in a repository.' This is a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes the tool from siblings like list_branches and create_repository.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Since there are no sibling tools for branch creation, the lack of exclusion criteria is acceptable, but the description does not mention prerequisites or context.

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