Bitbucket Server MCP

list_pull_request_tasks

List all tasks on a pull request, with pagination to control results per page for efficient browsing.

Instructions

List tasks on 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": "list_pull_request_tasks"
  }
}

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

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations and no output schema details in the description, the behavioral disclosure is insufficient. Only pagination is mentioned; nothing about read-only nature, result structure, or potential limits.

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 and includes a parameter list, which is moderately concise but could be more front-loaded. The list duplicates schema information without adding significant insight.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given no annotations and only a basic description, the tool lacks complete context. The output schema exists but is unmentioned; the description does not explain response structure or common use cases.

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 the description must compensate. While it lists each parameter with a brief label ('The project key'), these add minimal semantic value beyond the parameter names and schema defaults.

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 ('List tasks') and the resource ('on a pull request'), including the pagination aspect. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_pull_request_task' (singular) and 'create_pull_request_task'.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_pull_request_task' for a single task. The mention of pagination is the only usage hint, but no context about filtering or interpreting results.

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

Deploy Server