Bitbucket Server MCP

get_attachment

Download an attachment from a Bitbucket repository using its numeric ID. Returns file content for text attachments or size summary for binary files.

Instructions

Download an attachment from a repository by its numeric ID.

Returns content for text files or a size summary for binary files.

Args: project_key: The project key. repo_slug: The repository slug. attachment_id: The numeric attachment ID.

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>",
      "attachment_id": "<attachment_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_attachment"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`project_key`	Yes
`repo_slug`	Yes
`attachment_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.7.0May 28, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that text files return content and binary files return a size summary, adding behavioral context beyond the schema. Does not address authentication, rate limits, or potential side effects.

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?

Description is short with a clear main sentence, followed by a parameter list. The parameter list is somewhat redundant with the schema but aids quick reference. No unnecessary content.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers return values for text and binary files. It lacks details on errors or size limits, but for a simple download tool, it is fairly complete.

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 the description lists each parameter with brief explanations (e.g., 'The project key'). These are minimal and somewhat tautological but provide some semantics beyond the schema's names and types.

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 'Download an attachment from a repository by its numeric ID', specifying the action and resource. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling 'get_attachment_metadata', but the purpose is distinct enough.

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?

Provides context on behavior for text vs binary files, guiding expectations. However, no explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives like 'get_attachment_metadata', nor any when-not 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