Bitbucket MCP

list_pull_requests

List pull requests for a repository by slug, filter by state, and page through results to review open, merged, declined, or superseded pull requests.

Instructions

List pull requests for a 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>"
    },
    "name": "list_pull_requests"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`page`	No
`state`	No		OPEN
`repo_slug`	Yes	Repository slug

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.0.0-developmentSep 6, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that this is a listing operation but does not disclose pagination behavior, the default OPEN state filter, or any response characteristics; no meaningful behavioral context is added beyond the verb 'list'.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant wording. Every word contributes to identifying the operation, making it highly concise for the intended purpose.

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?

For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too thin: it omits when to use it versus the many PR-related siblings, does not describe return values, and leaves pagination and filtering behavior implied. An agent can infer the basic call but cannot confidently distinguish it or handle edge cases.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description only echoes the repository scope via 'for a repository' and adds no meaning for the page or state parameters. With only 33% schema description coverage, the description does little to compensate for the poorly documented parameters.

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 ('List'), resource ('pull requests'), and scope ('for a repository'), making the core operation clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_pull_request or list_pr_comments, though the plural 'pull requests' implies a collection-level listing.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as list_pr_comments, get_pull_request, or list_repositories. The description simply restates the operation and leaves tool selection entirely to the agent's inference.

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