Bitbucket MCP Server

get_repository

Retrieve detailed information about a Bitbucket repository, including its description, language, size, and URLs.

Instructions

Get detailed information about a specific repository including its description, language, size, and URLs.

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>"
    },
    "name": "get_repository"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`repo_slug`	Yes	The repository slug (e.g., 'my-repo').
`workspace`	No	The workspace slug. Optional if BITBUCKET_WORKSPACE env var is set.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.1Sep 2, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says what information is returned, but does not indicate whether this is a read-only operation, any permission requirements, rate limits, or how the response is structured. This is a notable gap 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 that is direct and informative, providing the core purpose and key return fields without any filler. Every word earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple, and the description names the main return fields, partially compensating for the missing output schema. However, there is no mention of when to use this tool, no behavioral details, and no clarification on how the workspace parameter is resolved. Given the lack of annotations, the description is adequate but not complete.

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 the parameters are already documented. The description does not add extra meaning about parameter formats or usage beyond what the schema provides; it merely restates the kind of data returned.

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 the verb 'Get' and the resource 'detailed information about a specific repository', listing concrete attributes (description, language, size, URLs). This distinguishes it from listing siblings like list_repositories, which cover multiple repos.

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 phrase 'specific repository' implies use when a single repo is needed, contrasting with list_repositories. However, no explicit guidance is given about when to choose this over siblings or when the workspace parameter matters, so usage context is only implied.

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

Deploy Server