Bitbucket Server MCP

merge_pull_request

Merge a pull request in Bitbucket Server by providing project key, repository slug, pull request ID, and current version. Optionally specify a merge strategy such as merge-commit, squash, or rebase-no-ff.

Instructions

Merge a pull request.

Args: project_key: The project key. repo_slug: The repository slug. pr_id: The pull request ID. version: Current version of the PR (required for optimistic locking). strategy: Optional merge strategy (e.g., 'merge-commit', 'squash', 'rebase-no-ff').

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>",
      "version": "<version>"
    },
    "name": "merge_pull_request"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`project_key`	Yes
`repo_slug`	Yes
`pr_id`	Yes
`version`	Yes
`strategy`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.7.0May 28, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Discloses version for optimistic locking and strategy examples, but does not explain side effects (e.g., PR closure, branch deletion) or required permissions. With no annotations, more detail is needed.

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?

Description is concise with one line and a bullet-like list. No unnecessary content, though could be slightly more structured.

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?

Lacks information on preconditions (e.g., PR must be open, mergable) and error conditions. Has output schema, so return values need no explanation, but overall completeness is adequate but not thorough.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Adds meaning beyond schema (0% coverage) by describing each parameter, including optimistic locking for version and example strategies. However, some descriptions are tautological (e.g., 'project_key: The project key').

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 'Merge a pull request.' which is a specific verb+resource, and it distinguishes from siblings like create, approve, decline, etc.

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 (e.g., can_merge_pull_request, create_pull_request). No mention of prerequisites like approval status or conflict resolution.

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

Deploy Server