Bitbucket MCP

search_by_jira_id

Search Bitbucket for pull requests and commits linked to a Jira issue ID by matching the ID in PR titles, source branch names, or commit messages.

Instructions

Search Bitbucket for PRs and commits related to a Jira issue ID. Finds PRs where the ID appears in the title or source branch name, and commits where it appears in the message.

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": {
      "jiraId": "<jiraId>"
    },
    "name": "search_by_jira_id"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`jiraId`	Yes	Jira issue key (e.g. PROJ-123)
`repoSlug`	No	Repository slug — omit to search all repos in the workspace

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jun 22, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided; description discloses where the search looks (title, branch, commit message) but lacks detail on authorization, rate limits, or behavior when no matches are found.

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, no wasted words, front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence adds value.

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?

No output schema, but tool's return format is implicit. Description is mostly complete for a simple search tool with two parameters; could mention result format.

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 description coverage is 100%; both parameters are described in the schema. The description adds minimal additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the tool searches Bitbucket for pull requests and commits related to a Jira issue ID, specifying where the ID appears (title, source branch, commit message). It distinguishes from sibling 'search_by_pr_title' by focusing on Jira ID rather than PR title.

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?

Description implies usage when a Jira ID is known, but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives like 'search_by_pr_title' or other search tools.

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

Deploy Server