Bitbucket MCP

List repository tree

list_directory

Explore repository file structure at a specific commit or branch for pull request reviews. Recursively list directories up to 10 levels deep to navigate project code.

Instructions

Lists files and directories under a repository path at a commit/branch. Use it to explore the project structure while reviewing a PR. Empty path = root; max_depth > 1 lists recursively. To see the code as proposed in the PR, pass the source_commit returned by get_pull_request.

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>"
    },
    "name": "list_directory"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`path`	No	Directory path. Omit for the root.
`repo`	Yes	Repository repo_slug.
`commit`	No	Commit or branch. Omit to use the default branch.
`max_depth`	No	Listing depth (default 1 = immediate children).
`workspace`	No	Bitbucket workspace. Omit to use BITBUCKET_WORKSPACE.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.1Jul 8, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It clarifies behavior with 'Empty path = root', 'max_depth > 1 lists recursively', and links to commit usage. It does not mention rate limits or auth, but the core behavior is well-explained.

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?

Three concise sentences with front-loaded action. No wasted words; every sentence adds essential information.

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 no output schema, the description should explain return values. It does not describe the output format (e.g., list of paths vs. tree structure). It covers usage context and parameter behavior but omits output and error scenarios.

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. The description adds value beyond schema by clarifying defaults (path root, max_depth recursion) and connecting commit usage to PR context.

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 tool lists files and directories under a repository path at a commit/branch, with specific details about root and depth. It distinguishes from siblings like get_file (single file) and get_pull_request_diff by referencing PR context.

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 explicit usage context ('explore project structure while reviewing a PR') and a specific hint for use with get_pull_request. It lacks explicit exclusions or alternative tool guidance, but the context is clear.

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

Deploy Server