Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Bitbucket Server MCP

Bitbucket Server MCP

by ManpreetShuann
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

request_changes_pull_request

Request changes on a pull request by setting the authenticated user's status to NEEDS_WORK, signaling that the PR needs further work.

Instructions

Request changes on a pull request as the authenticated user.

Sets the user's participant status to NEEDS_WORK.

Args: project_key: The project key. repo_slug: The repository slug. pr_id: The pull request ID.

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": "request_changes_pull_request"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_keyYes
repo_slugYes
pr_idYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.7.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool sets participant status to NEEDS_WORK, but does not mention permissions, reversibility, or side effects. Minimal behavioral insight.

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 concise with a clear first sentence. The docstring format is acceptable, though some redundancy exists (e.g., 'as the authenticated user' is implied).

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 a minimal description, the tool lacks context on side effects, error conditions, and prerequisites. The output schema may cover return values, but the description does not provide a complete picture for safe invocation.

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%. The description only lists parameter names in the docstring without adding any semantic meaning, constraints, or examples. It adds no value beyond the parameter names.

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 (request changes) and the resource (pull request). It distinguishes from sibling tools like approve, decline, or comment by specifying 'request changes' and setting status to NEEDS_WORK.

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. There is no mention of scenarios, prerequisites, or comparisons with siblings like decline or convert_to_draft.

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