Bitbucket MCP

add_default_reviewer

Add a Bitbucket user as a default reviewer for a repository, ensuring they are automatically included on all future pull requests.

Instructions

Add a user as default reviewer for the repository

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_slug": "<repo_slug>",
      "username": "<username>"
    },
    "name": "add_default_reviewer"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`username`	Yes	Bitbucket username
`repo_slug`	Yes	Repository slug

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.0.0-developmentSep 6, 2026

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 carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the intended effect and does not mention idempotency, behavior when the user is already a default reviewer, required permissions, or any side effects.

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?

The description is a single, clear sentence with no filler or redundant phrasing. It is appropriately sized for a simple operation and front-loads the core action and scope.

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 simple two-parameter mutation, the description is mostly adequate, and the schema documents the required inputs. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description omits behavioral context such as return values, error conditions, and permission requirements, leaving some gaps for an agent.

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 both parameters (username and repo_slug) are already meaningfully documented. The description adds minimal semantic context by clarifying the user is added as a 'default reviewer' and the repository is the target, but does not go beyond the schema's baseline.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('user as default reviewer for the repository'), making the intended action unambiguous. It clearly differs from sibling tools like list_default_reviewers, get_default_reviewer, and remove_default_reviewer by describing the write action.

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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites, permissions, or repository context. The sibling tool names imply the category of default-reviewer operations, but the description does not explicitly explain when adding is appropriate.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.