Bitbucket Server MCP

create_pull_request_task

Create tasks on pull requests to track action items, with optional linking to comments for context.

Instructions

Create a task on a pull request, optionally linked to a comment.

Args: project_key: The project key. repo_slug: The repository slug. pr_id: The pull request ID. text: The task description. comment_id: Optional comment ID to attach the task to.

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>",
      "pr_id": "<pr_id>",
      "text": "<text>"
    },
    "name": "create_pull_request_task"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`project_key`	Yes
`repo_slug`	Yes
`pr_id`	Yes
`text`	Yes
`comment_id`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.7.0May 28, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It only states the action and optional comment linking, but fails to disclose permissions, side effects, rate limits, or return behavior beyond the basic creation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is very concise: a single-sentence purpose followed by a structured Args list. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

While parameter descriptions are adequate, the tool lacks guidance on prerequisites (e.g., permissions, existence of PR) and does not leverage the existing output schema to describe return values. Somewhat incomplete for a tool with 5 parameters and many siblings.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description adds meaningful parameter explanations (project_key, repo_slug, pr_id, text, optional comment_id). It clarifies each argument's role, compensating well for the schema's lack of 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 task on a pull request' with an optional comment link. It distinguishes well from sibling tools like update_pull_request_task and list_pull_request_tasks.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. Usage is implied by the description, but given many sibling tools, explicit context would help. No alternatives mentioned.

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

Deploy Server