Bitbucket MCP

get_default_reviewer

Retrieve a specific default reviewer for a Bitbucket repository by providing the repository slug and username.

Instructions

Get a specific default reviewer

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": "get_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

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden. It only says 'Get', which implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose side effects, required permissions, error behavior, or what happens when no matching default reviewer exists. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the verb itself.

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 focused sentence with no filler and the key word 'specific' is front-loaded. It is concise, though slightly under-specified for usage and behavior.

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 getter, the description plus fully documented schema is minimally workable. But with no output schema and no annotations, the description omits return-value shape and error behavior, so it is not 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 coverage is 100% and both parameters already have descriptions ('Bitbucket username' and 'Repository slug'), so the schema carries the parameter documentation. The description adds little beyond 'specific,' which is consistent with username being the lookup key.

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 says the action ('Get') and the resource ('a specific default reviewer'), and 'specific' distinguishes it from sibling list_default_reviewers. It does not explicitly say that the username parameter selects the reviewer, but that is clear from the required parameters.

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?

The word 'specific' implies use when the agent already knows the target reviewer via username, rather than when enumerating all default reviewers. However, it never names list_default_reviewers or add/remove_default_reviewer, so the when-not-to-use guidance is left to inference.

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