Skip to main content
Glama
garc33

Bitbucket Server MCP

by garc33
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

create_pull_request

Create a new pull request to propose code changes, request reviews, or merge feature branches. Use this when you want to submit code for review, merge a feature branch, or contribute changes to a repository.

Instructions

Create a new pull request to propose code changes, request reviews, or merge feature branches. Use this when you want to submit code for review, merge a feature branch, or contribute changes to a repository. Automatically sets up branch references and can assign reviewers.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
titleYesClear, descriptive title for the pull request that summarizes the changes.
projectNoBitbucket project key. If omitted, uses BITBUCKET_DEFAULT_PROJECT environment variable. Use list_projects to discover available projects.
reviewersNoArray of Bitbucket usernames to assign as reviewers for this pull request.
repositoryYesRepository slug where the pull request will be created. Use list_repositories to find available repositories.
descriptionNoDetailed description of changes, context, and any relevant information for reviewers. Supports Markdown formatting.
sourceBranchYesSource branch name containing the changes to be merged (e.g., "feature/new-login", "bugfix/security-patch").
targetBranchYesTarget branch where changes will be merged (e.g., "main", "develop", "release/v1.2").
sourceProjectNoProject key of the source repository when creating a cross-repo PR from a fork. If omitted, defaults to the same project as the target.
sourceRepositoryNoSlug of the source repository when creating a cross-repo PR from a fork. If omitted, defaults to the same repository as the target.
includeDefaultReviewersNoAutomatically fetch and include default reviewers configured for the target branch. Defaults to true.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv1.0.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / includeDefaultReviewers
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Automatically fetch and include default reviewers configured for the target branch. Defaults to true.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / sourceProject
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Project key of the source repository when creating a cross-repo PR from a fork. If omitted, defaults to the same project as the target.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / sourceRepository
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Slug of the source repository when creating a cross-repo PR from a fork. If omitted, defaults to the same repository as the target.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a useful side effect ('Automatically sets up branch references and can assign reviewers'), but says nothing about required permissions, what happens on branch conflicts, or what the call returns.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and with zero filler. There is mild redundancy between the first sentence's goal list and the second sentence's use cases, which keeps it from a 5.

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 ten-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers intent but not outcome — an agent is not told whether the response contains a PR id, url, or reviewers assigned. The schema compensates for parameter detail, but the behavioral surface remains thin.

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 the schema already documents all ten parameters in detail (defaults, fork/cross-repo behavior, reviewer arrays). The description adds essentially no parameter-level meaning beyond 'can assign reviewers', 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?

The description opens with a specific verb+resource ('Create a new pull request') and enumerates concrete goals (propose code changes, request reviews, merge feature branches). It is clearly distinct from read/merge/decline siblings by name, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

It gives clear when-to-use conditions: submitting code for review, merging a feature branch, contributing changes. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions, so an agent is not told, for example, that actually merging is done by merge_pull_request rather than this tool.

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