Skip to main content
Glama
garc33

Bitbucket Server MCP

by garc33
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

add_comment_inline

Add an inline comment (to specific lines) to the diff of a pull request for code review, feedback, questions, or discussion.

Instructions

Add an inline comment (to specific lines) to the diff of 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
lineYesLine number in the file to attach the comment to (1-based).
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.
filePathYesPath to the file in the repository where the comment should be added (e.g., "src/main.py", "README.md").
lineTypeYesType of change the comment is associated with: ADDED for additions, REMOVED for deletions.
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

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about permissions needed, whether the comment triggers notifications, immediacy of visibility, or rate limits. 'Supports threaded conversations' gestures at behavior but the concrete mechanism (parentId) and the draft-vs-published distinction are only in the schema, leaving a write tool materially under-described.

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?

The first sentence is front-loaded and informative, but the second sentence re-enumerates the same use cases ('review feedback, ask questions, suggest improvements, participate in discussions') already implied by the list in sentence one. That duplication costs space without adding selection signal.

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 10-parameter write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is sufficient to convey what the tool does but thin on what an agent needs to act safely: no permission/auth context, no note on draft publication flow, no return information. It is minimally adequate rather than complete.

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% across all 10 parameters, so the schema already documents line numbering, lineType enum, state, severity, parentId, and repository/project resolution. The description adds no syntax, format, or coordination detail beyond what the schema states, which is the baseline case.

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 gives a specific verb (Add), resource (inline comment), and precise scope (to specific lines of a PR diff), which cleanly separates it from a general PR comment. It stops short of naming the sibling it differs from (add_comment for non-line-anchored comments), so an agent must infer the boundary rather than being told it.

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?

It offers a list of situations (review feedback, questions, suggestions, discussion), which implies usage but does not state when NOT to use it or name alternatives such as add_comment for general PR comments or publish_review for batch review submission. The guidance is largely a restatement of the purpose sentence rather than routing logic.

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