Bitbucket MCP

get_file_content

Retrieve the full text content of any file in a Bitbucket repository, specifying a branch or commit hash. Defaults to the repository's main branch.

Instructions

Get the full content of a file at a given branch name or commit hash. If no ref is given, the repository's default branch is used.

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_file_content"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`filePath`	Yes	Path to the file within the repository (e.g. src/auth.ts)
`ref`	No	Branch name or commit hash (defaults to the repo's main branch)
`repoSlug`	Yes	Repository slug (e.g. my-repo)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jun 22, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It only states the basic function and default ref behavior, but fails to mention whether the operation is read-only, return format (e.g., raw text), size limitations, or error handling. This is insufficient for transparent selection.

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?

Two sentences with no extraneous information. The action and scope are front-loaded. Every word is purposeful.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple file retrieval tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the primary behavior and parameter defaults. However, it lacks information about output format, error scenarios, or size limits, which would be helpful for an AI agent without external context.

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 input schema already provides descriptions for all three parameters (100% coverage). The description adds value by clarifying that the 'ref' parameter defaults to the repository's default branch, which is not in the schema. This enhances parameter understanding.

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 retrieves the full content of a file at a specified branch or commit hash, defaulting to the repository's default branch. This is distinct from sibling tools like get_diff or get_changed_files which focus on changes.

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 usage for reading file contents but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives such as get_changed_files or get_diff. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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

Deploy Server