Retrieve complete details of a specific Bitbucket pull request by repository slug and ID. Use to inspect status, changes, and metadata for review workflows.
Get full details of one pull request.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| repoSlug | Yes | Repository slug, e.g. 'my-repo' | |
| workspace | No | Omit to use the configured default workspace |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'full details' scope but no further behavioral context such as absent-parameter behavior, error conditions, or relation to default workspace; this is adequate but not enriching beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It conveys the essential action and object immediately and earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The required parameters and read-only annotations are sufficient for basic invocation, but with no output schema and many PR-related siblings, 'full details' is vague about the response boundary. The description could clarify what full details include or confirm that separate diff/comment/status tools are not included.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 67%, with repoSlug and workspace already described in the input schema. The description adds little beyond implying that `id` refers to the pull request being fetched, and `id` remains undocumented, but the missing semantics are relatively self-evident.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('full details of one pull request'), and the singular 'one' clearly separates it from list-oriented siblings like bitbucket_pull_request_list. The phrase 'full details' also distinguishes it from focused tools like pull_request_diff or merge_status.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description states what the tool does but gives no guidance on when to pick it over siblings such as bitbucket_pull_request_list, diff, or comment tools. There are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or alternative tool mentions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.