Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Bitbucket Server MCP

Bitbucket Server MCP

by ManpreetShuann
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

get_repository

Retrieve details of a specific repository by providing the project key and repository slug.

Instructions

Get details of a specific 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_repository"
  }
}

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

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Get details' which implies a read operation, but fails to disclose behavior on missing repositories, error handling, or permission requirements.

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?

The description is very concise with two lines of text and a parameter list, no fluff. However, it could be restructured to be more readable, but overall it is efficient.

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 that an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. However, for a simple retrieval tool, it lacks details on authorization or potential errors, making it slightly incomplete.

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%, and the description merely lists the parameter names without adding any additional meaning beyond the schema titles (e.g., 'Project Key'). No format or constraints are explained.

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 'Get details of a specific repository' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_repositories' (which lists all) and 'create_repository' (which creates).

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?

The description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer its use case from the name and parameters.

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