Bitbucket Server MCP

get_pull_request_activities

Retrieve paginated activity feed for a pull request in a Bitbucket repository to review comments, approvals, and updates.

Instructions

Get the activity feed for a pull request (paginated).

Args: project_key: The project key. repo_slug: The repository slug. pr_id: The pull request ID. start: Page start index (default 0). limit: Number of results per page (default 25).

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>"
    },
    "name": "get_pull_request_activities"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`project_key`	Yes
`repo_slug`	Yes
`pr_id`	Yes
`start`	No
`limit`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.7.0May 28, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions pagination but omits details like order of results, error handling, or authentication requirements. Minimal transparency.

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?

Single sentence plus parameter list is concise, but the parameter list is redundant with the schema and could be shortened or omitted if schema descriptions were present.

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?

Tool has output schema, lowering burden, but description fails to set expectation for the output content or use cases. Pagination is noted, but ordering and filtering are absent.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It lists parameters with brief notes but adds little beyond the schema defaults. No explanation of what start/limit mean in context beyond defaults.

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?

Description clearly states it gets the activity feed for a pull request and mentions pagination. It distinguishes from siblings like list_pull_request_comments by focusing on the broader activity feed.

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 like get_pull_request or list_pull_request_comments. No context on appropriate scenarios or exclusions.

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

Deploy Server