Bitbucket Server MCP

create_repository

Create a new Git repository in a specified project. Set name, SCM type, forkability, and description.

Instructions

Create a new repository in a project.

Args: project_key: The project key to create the repo in. name: Name for the new repository. scm_id: SCM type, typically 'git' (default). forkable: Whether the repo can be forked (default True). description: Optional description for the repository.

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>",
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "create_repository"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`project_key`	Yes
`name`	Yes
`scm_id`	No	git
`forkable`	No
`description`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.7.0May 28, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. Beyond parameter list, it discloses no behavioral details (e.g., idempotency, side effects, error conditions). The description adds nothing that the schema does not already show.

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 clear main action. Parameter list is concise but somewhat redundant with schema. Could be more compact, but not excessive.

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?

Covers purpose and parameters, but lacks usage context, behavioral attributes, and does not mention return value (even though output schema exists). Adequate for basic understanding but incomplete for a new agent.

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 description coverage is 0%, but description explains each parameter with type and default. It adds minor context (e.g., 'typically git' for scm_id), but largely repeats schema information. Some value added, but not extensive.

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 repository in a project.' It uses a specific verb ('create') and resource ('repository'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like create_branch or create_pull_request.

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. It does not mention prerequisites, context (e.g., need a project key), or cases where this tool is not appropriate.

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

Deploy Server