Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Bitbucket MCP

Bitbucket MCP

by SamtheIII
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

get_commit_history_for_file

Retrieve commit history for a specific file, showing who changed it and how often.

Instructions

Get the commit history for a specific file, showing who changed it and how frequently.

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": {
      "filePath": "<filePath>",
      "repoSlug": "<repoSlug>"
    },
    "name": "get_commit_history_for_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
filePathYesPath to the file within the repository (e.g. src/auth.ts)
repoSlugYesRepository slug (e.g. my-repo)
limitNoMaximum number of commits to return (default 50)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states what the tool does but does not disclose ordering, pagination, or performance implications.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words.

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?

Without an output schema, the description only vaguely mentions 'who changed it and how frequently', lacking specifics on output fields, ordering, and default limit behavior.

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 100% with clear descriptions for all parameters; the description adds no additional semantics beyond the schema.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'commit history for a specific file', and distinguishes the tool from siblings by focusing on file-specific history.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use or not use this tool versus alternatives like get_diff or get_changed_files.

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