Bitbucket MCP

list_default_reviewers

Find which reviewers are automatically added to new pull requests for a repository, helping you set expectations before creating a PR.

Instructions

List default reviewers for a repository (auto-added to new PRs)

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>"
    },
    "name": "list_default_reviewers"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`repo_slug`	Yes	Repository slug

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.0.0-developmentSep 6, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation, and the parenthetical explains what default reviewers are, but the description does not disclose response format, pagination, error conditions, or permission requirements. For a simple list operation this is acceptable but not rich.

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, direct sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and resource, and the parenthetical adds useful context without bloating the text.

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?

The tool is simple: one required parameter, no nested objects, and no output schema. The description fully identifies what the tool does and the parenthetical clarifies the domain meaning of the results. Minor gaps like return format or empty-result behavior are not critical given the tool's simplicity.

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 schema has full 100% description coverage for the single parameter repo_slug, already stating it is a 'Repository slug'. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, 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.

Purpose5/5

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

The description states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('default reviewers for a repository') and adds a clarifying parenthetical that these are auto-added to new PRs. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like get_default_reviewer, add_default_reviewer, and remove_default_reviewer.

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?

The description clearly frames the tool's context: it lists the default reviewers configured at the repository level. It does not explicitly call out sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, but the read-only 'list' phrasing distinguishes it naturally from the add/remove/get sibling tools.

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