Bitbucket MCP

approve_pull_request

Approve a pull request in a Bitbucket repository by providing the repository slug and pull request ID.

Instructions

Approve a pull request

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>",
      "pr_id": "<pr_id>"
    },
    "name": "approve_pull_request"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`pr_id`	Yes	Pull request ID
`repo_slug`	Yes	Repository slug

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.0.0-developmentSep 6, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

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 burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Approve a pull request' names the action but does not explain side effects, permissions required, whether the PR must be open, whether approval is idempotent, or what happens to existing approvals.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words and is easy to parse quickly. However, it is so terse that it contributes little behavioral or contextual information beyond the tool's name.

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

Completeness2/5

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

With no output schema and no annotations, the description is the only source of context, but it only states the action. It omits the approval workflow context, possible results, required reviewer role, and constraints such as not approving one's own pull request.

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?

The input schema already documents both parameters with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to add param-level detail. The description provides no additional semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Approve') and resource ('pull request'), so an agent can clearly tell this tool performs a code-review approval action. It does not explicitly contrast it with siblings like unapprove_pull_request or request_pr_changes, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 such as unapprove_pull_request, request_pr_changes, or merge_pull_request. There are no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions mentioned.

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