bitbucket-mcp-server

search

Find repositories, pull requests, issues, and commits across a Bitbucket workspace using a query.

Instructions

Search across repositories, pull requests, issues, and commits in a workspace

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": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "search"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Maximum number of results per type
`query`	Yes	Search query (searches in titles, descriptions, and content)
`types`	No	Types of items to search
`workspace`	No	Bitbucket workspace name. Falls back to BITBUCKET_WORKSPACE env var if not provided.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv3.2.0Nov 10, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and largely fails: it does not state that this is a read-only operation, does not mention ranking/ordering of results, does not describe cross-type result structure, and says nothing about rate limits or pagination. The only behavioral hint is the implicit 'search across ... in a workspace' scoping, which is thin for a 4-parameter tool with no output schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined trimming.

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?

Given four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the definition is minimal but not broken — the schema covers parameter detail. What is missing is anything about what a cross-type search returns (grouped by type? flat list?) and how matching works, which an agent needs to interpret results.

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 (query, types, limit, workspace with its BITBUCKET_WORKSPACE fallback) is already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about matching semantics, default type coverage, or result limits. Baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description names a specific verb (search) and enumerates the resource types covered (repositories, pull requests, issues, commits) in a workspace. However, it does nothing to distinguish itself from siblings such as 'commits', 'repositories', 'pull-requests', and 'list-issues', which plausibly cover overlapping ground. An agent cannot tell from this sentence alone what search adds over those list-style tools.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative is named. The description never says whether to prefer this over 'list-issues' or 'commits', or whether it is a full-text lookup vs a listing endpoint. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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

Deploy Server