Bitbucket Server MCP

search_code

Search code across Bitbucket repositories using queries, with optional scope by project or repository slug and result limit.

Instructions

Search for code across repositories using Bitbucket Server's code search.

Requires the Bitbucket Server instance to have code search enabled (Elasticsearch).

Args: query: Search query string. project_key: Optional project key to restrict search scope. repo_slug: Optional repository slug to restrict search (requires project_key). limit: Maximum number of results (default 25, max 1000).

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": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "search_code"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`query`	Yes
`project_key`	No
`repo_slug`	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

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Lacks annotations, so description must bear the load. Mentions Elasticsearch requirement and limit defaults, but does not disclose return format, pagination, error behaviors, or whether results include snippets.

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 a clear first sentence followed by structured Args. No superfluous text, though the Args block could be more integrated.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Covers prerequisite, scope parameters, and limit. With output schema existing, missing return details are acceptable. Minor gap: no explanation of query language or wildcard support.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so description adds necessary parameter context: query required, project_key and repo_slug optional with constraint that repo_slug requires project_key, limit default and max. However, query syntax and expected format are not explained.

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?

Clearly states it searches code across repositories using Bitbucket Server code search. Differentiates from siblings like browse_files and find_file by specifying 'code search' but does not explicitly contrast with them.

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?

Provides prerequisite (Elasticsearch enabled) but no directives on when to use vs alternatives like find_file or browse_files. Usage is implied by the tool's unique function.

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

Deploy Server