Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
bitbucket-mcp-server

bitbucket-mcp-server

by WilliamLINWEN
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

pr-comments

List comments on a Bitbucket pull request or retrieve details for a single comment by providing its comment ID.

Instructions

List comments on a pull request, or get details for a single comment when comment_id is provided.

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": {
      "repo_slug": "<repo_slug>",
      "pr_id": "<pr_id>"
    },
    "name": "pr-comments"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNo(list only) Page number or opaque next page URL
pr_idYesPull request ID
pagelenNo(list only) Items per page (10-100, default 10)
repo_slugYesRepository slug/name
workspaceNoBitbucket workspace name. Falls back to BITBUCKET_WORKSPACE env var if not provided.
comment_idNoComment ID. If provided, returns a single comment; otherwise lists.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv3.2.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the dual list/detail behavior, which is genuinely useful and not obvious from the name. It says nothing about read-only nature, permissions, pagination traversal, ordering, or how many comments come back, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the primary list behavior and immediately qualified by the detail mode. No filler, no repetition of the tool name beyond what is needed.

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?

Six parameters with two required and no output schema means the description should at least hint at the return shape and pagination model, which it does not. The pagination parameters are covered in the schema, which keeps this from being worse, but an agent still lacks context on what a comment object contains or how to walk pages.

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%, so every parameter including `comment_id`, `page`, `pagelen`, and the workspace env fallback is already documented in the schema. The description only restates the `comment_id` branch, adding no format, ordering, or interaction detail beyond the structured fields. Baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource (list comments on a pull request) and explicitly adds a second mode keyed on `comment_id`. An agent can tell what this does without opening the schema, though it never distinguishes itself from nearby siblings like create-pr-comment or resolve-pr-comment.

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 when-to-use signal is confined to the mode switch: supply `comment_id` for one comment, omit it to list. There is no guidance on when to prefer this over sibling tools that also touch PR comments, nor any stated prerequisite such as needing access to the repo.

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