Bitbucket Server MCP

get_commit

Retrieve details of a specific commit by providing project key, repository slug, and commit hash.

Instructions

Get details of a specific commit.

Args: project_key: The project key. repo_slug: The repository slug. commit_id: The full commit hash.

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>",
      "commit_id": "<commit_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_commit"
  }
}

Input Schema

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

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only states 'Get details' without addressing read-only nature, error responses, or side effects. This minimal disclosure is insufficient for informed invocation.

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 extremely concise: one sentence and a parameter list. It front-loads the primary purpose and wastes no words, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

The existence of an output schema reduces the need for detailed return value documentation. However, the description lacks essential context such as typical scenarios, error handling, or relationship to sibling tools (e.g., get_commit_changes). It is adequate for a simple get operation but leaves gaps for complex decisions.

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 description adds meaning by clarifying each parameter: 'the project key', 'the repository slug', and 'the full commit hash' (specifying full hash vs. short). This provides value over the schema's bare titles, but given 0% schema description coverage, more detail (e.g., format, constraints) would be beneficial.

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 'Get details of a specific commit,' providing a specific verb and resource. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_commit_changes or get_commit_diff, which could cause confusion in tool selection.

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?

The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks context about prerequisites, input validation, or preferred scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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

Deploy Server