Skip to main content
Glama
clikader

bitbucket-python-mcp

by clikader

create_pull_request

Create a pull request to merge changes from one branch to another. Automatically detects the source branch and selects the destination, with optional reviewer assignment.

Instructions

Create a new pull request.

Use this tool to create a pull request for merging changes from one branch to another. Supports auto-detection of source branch and smart destination selection.

Workflow for adding reviewers:

  1. First use search_workspace_users to find users by name

  2. Pass the account_id(s) from the search results to reviewer_account_ids

  3. Default reviewers are automatically included unless disabled

Args: title: Title of the pull request. source_branch: Branch containing the changes. If not provided, uses the current git branch. Cannot be main/master/development. destination_branch: Branch to merge into. If not provided, defaults to 'development' for feature/bugfix branches. description: Optional description of the changes. repository: Repository slug. If not provided, uses current repository context. workspace: Workspace slug. If not provided, uses the default workspace. reviewer_account_ids: Comma-separated list of reviewer account_ids to add as additional reviewers (use search_workspace_users to find these). include_default_reviewers: If True (default), includes repository's default reviewers in addition to any specified reviewers. close_source_branch: Whether to close the source branch after merge.

Returns: JSON object with the created pull request details.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
titleYes
workspaceNo
repositoryNo
descriptionNo
source_branchNo
destination_branchNo
close_source_branchNo
reviewer_account_idsNo
include_default_reviewersNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: auto-detection of branches, default reviewers, smart destination selection, and the option to close source branch. It does not mention side effects or destructive actions, but the description is sufficiently transparent.

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?

The description is moderately long but well-structured with a clear purpose statement, a workflow section, and parameter descriptions. It front-loads the main purpose. While it could be slightly more concise, the structure aids readability.

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 9 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description is thorough. It covers parameter meanings, defaults, and the return type. The workflow for adding reviewers adds contextual completeness, making it suitable for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It includes an Args section that adds meaning: for source_branch (uses current git branch), destination_branch (defaults to 'development'), and reviewer_account_ids (comma-separated list from search_workspace_users). This adds significant value beyond the input schema.

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 'Create a new pull request' and provides specific details about merging changes between branches. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like add_pull_request_comment or approve_pull_request by focusing on creation.

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 a clear workflow for adding reviewers and mentions auto-detection of source branch and smart destination selection. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance but gives sufficient context for appropriate usage.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/clikader/bitbucket-python-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server