Skip to main content
Glama
garc33

Bitbucket Server MCP

by garc33
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

add_comment

Add a comment to a pull request for code review, feedback, questions, or discussion. Use this to provide review feedback, ask questions about specific changes, suggest improvements, or participate in code review discussions.

Instructions

Add a comment to a pull request for code review, feedback, questions, or discussion. Use this to provide review feedback, ask questions about specific changes, suggest improvements, or participate in code review discussions. Supports threaded conversations.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
prIdYesPull request ID to comment on.
textYesComment text content. Supports Markdown formatting for code blocks, links, and emphasis.
stateNoComment state. Use PENDING to create a draft comment visible only to you until you publish the review. Defaults to OPEN.
projectNoBitbucket project key. If omitted, uses BITBUCKET_DEFAULT_PROJECT environment variable.
parentIdNoID of parent comment to reply to. Omit for top-level comments.
severityNoComment severity. Use BLOCKER to create a task instead of a regular comment. Defaults to NORMAL.
repositoryYesRepository slug containing the pull request.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.0.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / severity
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Comment severity. Use BLOCKER to create a task instead of a regular comment. Defaults to NORMAL.",
+  "enum": [
+    "NORMAL",
+    "BLOCKER"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / state
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Comment state. Use PENDING to create a draft comment visible only to you until you publish the review. Defaults to OPEN.",
+  "enum": [
+    "OPEN",
+    "PENDING"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It only mentions 'Supports threaded conversations', which is already implied by the parentId parameter schema. It omits permissions required, side effects like notifications, default behaviors for state/severity/project, and what the response contains.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, but the second sentence largely repeats the first's list of use cases, and the third is a fragment. Some redundancy reduces 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?

For a write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin on behavioral context. The rich schema documents parameters well, but the description does not compensate for missing annotation coverage or explain return/notification 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 description coverage is 100%, so all seven parameters are fully documented in the schema, including defaults for state and severity. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb 'Add' and resource 'comment to a pull request', with clear review-oriented purpose. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling add_comment_inline, leaving ambiguity about which tool to use for line-specific versus general PR comments.

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?

Explicitly lists when to use the tool (review feedback, questions, suggestions, discussions), giving clear context. But it provides no exclusions or alternatives, such as using add_comment_inline for inline comments or edit_comment to modify an existing comment.

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