Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Bitbucket MCP

Bitbucket MCP

by daniloneto
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

Pull request commits

get_pull_request_commits

List all commits in a Bitbucket pull request. Provide the repository slug and pull request ID to retrieve the commits.

Instructions

Lists the commits that make up 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": "get_pull_request_commits"
  }
}

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

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

The description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the basic function. There is no mention of pagination, ordering, or whether the response includes full commit details. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden, and it falls short.

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 very concise (8 words) and to the point. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it lacks any structural elements like sections, which could improve readability.

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?

The tool has no output schema, 3 parameters, and no annotations. The description is minimal and does not explain the return format (e.g., commit metadata vs. full details). It leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the full behavior.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what is in the schema. It does not explain how parameters affect the output or provide additional context like format constraints.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Lists the commits that make up the PR' clearly states the verb (lists) and resource (commits of a PR). It is unambiguous and differentiates from sibling tools like get_pull_request_diff or get_pull_request, as those deal with different aspects. However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings, which would earn a 5.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context about when listing commits is appropriate, or when to prefer other tools for related tasks.

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