Bitbucket MCP

remove_default_reviewer

Remove a specified Bitbucket user from a repository's default reviewers so they are no longer automatically assigned to pull requests.

Instructions

Remove a user from default reviewers

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": "remove_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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Remove' without explaining side effects, idempotency, error behavior, or auth requirements. This is a meaningful gap for a mutating operation.

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 words. It states exactly the operation and object in minimal space.

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 with no output schema, the description names the action and object adequately. However, it omits behavior around removal failure, repeated removal, and whether this affects only the given repository, leaving some context for the agent to infer.

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%, with both username and repo_slug documented by name. The description adds little beyond the schema, but because the schema already explains the parameters, baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Remove') with a clear object ('a user from default reviewers'), which distinguishes this tool from its siblings list_default_reviewers, get_default_reviewer, and add_default_reviewer. No ambiguity remains about the primary 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 the related add/list/get default reviewer tools. It does not state prerequisites, such as whether the user must currently be a default reviewer, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives.

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