Bitbucket MCP

Pull request comments

get_pull_request_comments

Retrieve all existing comments on a Bitbucket pull request, including general and inline comments, to review feedback during code review.

Instructions

Lists a PR's existing comments (general and inline).

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": "get_pull_request_comments"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Pull request number.
`repo`	Yes	Repository repo_slug.
`workspace`	No	Bitbucket workspace. Omit to use BITBUCKET_WORKSPACE.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.1Jul 8, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description bears full responsibility. It only states the tool lists comments, omitting behavioral details such as pagination, ordering, authentication requirements, or rate limits. For a read operation, this is minimally informative.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the action and scope. It is efficient with no wasted words, though a bit more context (e.g., output format) would be beneficial without harming conciseness.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and full schema coverage, the description provides the basic purpose. However, it lacks details on output format, ordering, or pagination, and does not help differentiate from related sibling tools like 'get_pull_request_diff' or 'get_pull_request_commits'.

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 coverage is 100%, so the input schema fully documents all three parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. This meets the baseline for schema-rich definitions.

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 specifies the verb 'lists', the resource 'PR's existing comments', and clarifies it includes both general and inline comments. This clearly differentiates from sibling tools like 'add_pull_request_comment' (adds) and 'get_pull_request_diff' (shows diff).

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 description implies the tool should be used to view comments on a pull request, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use 'get_pull_request_diff' instead). No exclusions or context triggers are mentioned.

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

Deploy Server