Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Bitbucket MCP

Bitbucket MCP

by daniloneto
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

List pull requests

list_pull_requests

Lists pull requests from a Bitbucket repository, filtered by state (open, merged, declined, superseded).

Instructions

Lists a repository's PRs, filtered by state.

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_pull_requests"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
repoYesRepository repo_slug.
limitNoMax items (default 25).
stateNoPR state (default OPEN).
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, so description must disclose behavior. Only states 'lists', implying read-only but not explicit. No mention of safety, pagination, rate limits, or response structure. Insufficient for a write-free tool.

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?

Single concise sentence that is front-loaded and complete. Every word adds value with no redundancy.

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?

No output schema, yet description does not explain return format, pagination behavior, or field included. Adequate for simple list but lacks details an agent needs to interpret results. With 4 parameters, more completeness expected.

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% with descriptions for all parameters. Description adds no new info beyond 'filtered by state', already in schema. Baseline 3 maintained.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'Lists' and resource 'repository's PRs', with filtering by state. Distinguishes from siblings like get_pull_request (single PR) and others. Could explicitly contrast with similar list tools but is adequate.

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 this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites or conditions for use. The description only states what it does without context on selection criteria.

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