Skip to main content
Glama
Zomino

bitbucket-mcp

by Zomino
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Related Servers

Alternatives to bitbucket-mcp

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • bitbucket-mcp

      matt-nann
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      MCP server for Bitbucket Cloud that enables reviewing, managing, and merging pull requests, assigning reviewers by name, reading files at a ref, and inspecting pipeline status from any MCP client.
      14
      MIT

    • Bitbucket MCP Server

      zhanglc
      A
      license
      B
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      An MCP server that provides tools for interacting with the Bitbucket API, supporting both Bitbucket Cloud and Bitbucket Server, enabling pull request, branch, file, code review, and search operations.
      19
      3,671 npm
      MIT

    • Bitbucket MCP

      inconcept
      A
      license
      B
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      An MCP server for Bitbucket Cloud that enables managing pull requests, branches, and repositories in natural language from any MCP-capable client.
      23
      121 npm
      4
      MIT
    Deploy Server
    One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

    TDQS

    C2.9/5.0

    Scored across 26 tools

    Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool targets a distinct resource and action. Pull request tools are clearly separated by operation (get, create, update, merge, approve, etc.) and by scope (list vs detail, comments vs inline comments vs replies). Pipeline tools are similarly distinct for runs, steps, and logs.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Tool names consistently follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., get_pull_request, create_pull_request_comment, get_pipeline_steps). Even the slightly longer names like request_pull_request_changes or diagnose_pipeline_failure remain readable and align with the pattern.

    Tool Count4/5

    26 tools is slightly above the typical 3-15 range, but the scope intentionally covers both pull request management (21 tools) and pipeline inspection (5 tools). Each tool serves a distinct, non-redundant purpose, making the count justified rather than bloated.

    Completeness4/5

    The pull request lifecycle is well covered: create, update, merge, decline, approve, request changes, comments, diffs, commits, and statuses. Pipelines cover listing, getting details, steps, logs, and failure diagnosis. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no general list of PRs filtered by state, no pipeline triggering), but they are non-critical for most workflows.

    Maintenance

    ActivityStale
    ResponsivenessNo issues

    Resources