mcp-bitbucket-dc

Search Repositories

bitbucket_search_repositories

Read-onlyIdempotent

Search Bitbucket repositories across all projects without a project key. Filter results by name, project name, or permission to locate accessible repositories.

Instructions

Search repositories across all projects.

Returns repositories the authenticated user has access to, optionally filtered by name, project name, or permission level. Unlike bitbucket_get_repositories, this does not require a project key.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "bitbucket_search_repositories"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	No	Filter repositories by name (substring match)
`limit`	No	Max results to return (1-1000)
`start`	No	Pagination start index
`permission`	No	Filter by permission: REPO_READ, REPO_WRITE, or REPO_ADMIN
`project_name`	No	Filter by project name (substring match)
`response_format`	No	Output format: markdown (default) or json	markdown

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.0.0Apr 30, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already provide read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds authentication context (user access) and mentions filtering options. No contradictions.

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 concise sentences with front-loaded purpose. No unnecessary words, every sentence adds value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 6 optional parameters, full schema coverage, presence of output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description covers scope, auth context, and key differentiator. Complete for a search tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that the tool does not require a project key, which is implied in the parameter semantics but made explicit here.

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?

The description clearly states it searches repositories across all projects, with optional filters. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tool bitbucket_get_repositories by noting it does not require a project key.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides context for when to use (no project key needed) and contrasts with a sibling tool. It could be more explicit about when not to use, but the guidance is clear enough.

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