Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Bitbucket MCP

Bitbucket MCP

by daniloneto
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

Comment on a pull request

add_pull_request_comment

Add context to code reviews by posting comments on Bitbucket pull requests. Support inline comments on specific files and lines.

Instructions

WRITE — posts a comment on the PR. Provide path and line together for an inline comment.

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": "<repo>",
      "id": "<id>",
      "text": "<text>"
    },
    "name": "add_pull_request_comment"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesPull request number.
lineNoLine (new side) for an inline comment.
pathNoFile for an inline comment.
repoYesRepository repo_slug.
textYesComment text (markdown supported).
workspaceNoBitbucket workspace. Omit to use BITBUCKET_WORKSPACE.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.1

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It identifies the action as WRITE but does not disclose whether comments are appended, edited, or potential side effects like notifications. Adequate but could add more behavioral context.

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: first states core purpose, second gives critical usage hint. No filler, front-loaded, each sentence earns its place.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple write tool with no output schema and good schema coverage, description covers the main action and inline comment constraint. Could mention that comments are added rather than edited, but overall adequate.

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%, baseline 3. Description adds value by clarifying that `path` and `line` must be used together for inline comments. No additional semantics for other parameters, but sufficiently supplements 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 the verb 'posts a comment on the PR' and identifies the resource (pull request). It distinguishes from sibling tools like approve, get, list, as it focuses on adding comments.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use `path` and `line` together for inline comments. Does not describe exclusions or when not to use, but context is clear for a write tool.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools