Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Bitbucket Server MCP

Bitbucket Server MCP

by ManpreetShuann
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

get_default_branch

Retrieve the default branch of a Bitbucket repository by providing project key and repository slug.

Instructions

Get the default branch of a repository.

Args: project_key: The project key. repo_slug: The repository slug.

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": "get_default_branch"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_keyYes
repo_slugYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.7.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authorization needs, or side effects. For a simple getter, this is minimal.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is short but includes a redundant 'Args:' block that repeats parameter names. It could be more concise without this repetition.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 params) and existence of an output schema, the description is adequate but lacks guidance on when to use it and what the default branch represents.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description adds only basic explanations ('The project key', 'The repository slug') that add little beyond the parameter titles.

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 the action ('Get') and the resource ('default branch of a repository'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'list_branches' or 'get_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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_branches' or 'get_repository'. Usage is implied but not contextualized.

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