Skip to main content
Glama
garc33

Bitbucket Server MCP

by garc33
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

get_reviews

Fetch the review history and approval status of a pull request. Use this to check who has reviewed the PR, see approval status, understand review feedback, or determine if the PR is ready for merging based on review requirements.

Instructions

Fetch the review history and approval status of a pull request. Use this to check who has reviewed the PR, see approval status, understand review feedback, or determine if the PR is ready for merging based on review requirements.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
prIdYesPull request ID to get reviews for.
limitNoMaximum number of activities to return per page (default: 25, max: 100).
startNoPage offset (0-based). Use nextPageStart from a previous response to fetch the next page.
projectNoBitbucket project key. If omitted, uses BITBUCKET_DEFAULT_PROJECT environment variable.
fetchAllNoWhen true, fetches all pages and returns the complete review history. Recommended when thorough analysis is needed.
repositoryYesRepository slug containing the pull request.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv1.0.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / fetchAll
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "When true, fetches all pages and returns the complete review history. Recommended when thorough analysis is needed.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / limit
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Maximum number of activities to return per page (default: 25, max: 100).",
+  "type": "number"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / start
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Page offset (0-based). Use nextPageStart from a previous response to fetch the next page.",
+  "type": "number"
+}
  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. 'Fetch' implies a read-only, non-destructive operation and it names the returned content (review history, approval status), but it says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or whether pagination affects completeness. Adequate but incomplete for a no-annotation tool.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core action front-loaded. The second sentence is a list of use cases that earns most of its space, though it is mildly redundant with the first.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately conveys what the tool returns (review history and approval status) and when to use it. Pagination details are covered by the schema. Minor gaps remain around permissions and return structure, but nothing essential is missing.

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 six parameters are already documented in the schema, including limit, start, fetchAll, project, repository, and prId. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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+resource: 'Fetch the review history and approval status of a pull request.' This clearly distinguishes it from nearby siblings like get_comments, get_activities, and approve_pull_request. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Gives clear use contexts: check who reviewed the PR, see approval status, understand feedback, or judge merge-readiness. However, it offers no exclusions or explicit routing to alternatives such as get_comments or get_activities, so an agent must infer which tool to pick.

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