Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Bitbucket MCP

Bitbucket MCP

by daniloneto
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

Approve a pull request

approve_pull_request

Approve a pull request by recording the authenticated user's approval in Bitbucket.

Instructions

WRITE — records the authenticated user's approval on the PR.

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>"
    },
    "name": "approve_pull_request"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesPull request number.
repoYesRepository repo_slug.
workspaceNoBitbucket workspace. Omit to use BITBUCKET_WORKSPACE.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.1

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided; the description only states 'WRITE' and 'records approval.' It does not disclose permissions, reversibility, or side effects beyond the basic action.

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?

Very concise single sentence with minimal waste. The 'WRITE' prefix adds context without excess.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Lacks details on return values, side effects, or prerequisites. With no output schema or annotations, the agent needs more context to reliably use this tool.

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 schema already explains each parameter. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the 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 ('records') and resource ('the PR'), and the title 'Approve a pull request' matches. It distinguishes from siblings like request_changes_pull_request by specifying approval action.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use vs alternatives like request_changes_pull_request. The agent must infer from the name and sibling list without explicit instructions.

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