Bitbucket MCP
Server Configuration
Describes the environment variables required to run the server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| BITBUCKET_TOKEN | No | Bitbucket API token for authenticated requests | |
| BITBUCKET_API_URL | No | URL for custom Bitbucket Server installations |
Instructions
Guidance the server publishes about itself, which clients place ahead of the tool catalog so the model reads it before choosing anything.
This server publishes no instructions, or was last inspected before Glama recorded them.
Capabilities
Server capabilities have not been inspected yet.
Tools
Functions exposed to the LLM to take actions
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| listRepositoriesD | – |
| getRepositoryD | – |
| getPullRequestsD | – |
Prompts
Interactive templates invoked by user choice
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No prompts | |
Resources
Contextual data attached and managed by the client
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No resources | |
TDQS
Scored across 3 tools
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: getPullRequests retrieves pull requests, getRepository fetches a specific repository, and listRepositories lists all repositories. There is no overlap or ambiguity between these operations.
The tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (getPullRequests, getRepository, listRepositories), but there is a minor deviation in verb choice between 'get' and 'list'. This is still highly readable and predictable.
With only 3 tools, the server feels thin for a Bitbucket integration, lacking essential operations like creating or updating repositories, managing pull requests (e.g., create, merge), or handling issues. The scope is incomplete for typical version control workflows.
The tool surface is severely incomplete for a Bitbucket server, missing core CRUD operations (e.g., create_repository, update_pull_request, delete_branch) and lifecycle management. Agents will face dead ends when trying to perform basic tasks like modifying repositories or pull requests.