Bitbucket Server MCP

update_pull_request_task

Update a task's content or state on a pull request by specifying task ID, new text, and new state (OPEN or RESOLVED).

Instructions

Update a task's content or state on a pull request.

Args: project_key: The project key. repo_slug: The repository slug. pr_id: The pull request ID. task_id: The task ID. text: New task description (leave empty to keep current). state: New task state - 'OPEN' or 'RESOLVED' (leave empty to keep current).

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>",
      "task_id": "<task_id>"
    },
    "name": "update_pull_request_task"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`project_key`	Yes
`repo_slug`	Yes
`pr_id`	Yes
`task_id`	Yes
`text`	No
`state`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.7.0May 28, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states 'update' but does not disclose behavioral traits like persistence, permissions, or side effects. More detail is needed for a mutation tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise, front-loads the primary purpose, and lists parameters efficiently. No extraneous information.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema and moderate complexity, the description covers the basics of what the tool does and its parameters. It lacks behavioral context but is sufficient for a straightforward update operation.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, but the description includes an Args block explaining each parameter's purpose. It adds meaningful context beyond the raw schema, especially for text and state fields.

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 tool updates a task's content or state on a pull request. It uses a specific verb+resource and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_pull_request_task and get_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 Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use the tool (to modify a task) but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. It lacks exclusions or context for choosing among sibling tools.

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

Deploy Server