Bitbucket MCP

reopen_pr_comment

Reopen a resolved comment thread on a pull request to continue the conversation without creating a new comment.

Instructions

Reopen a resolved comment thread on 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>",
      "comment_id": "<comment_id>"
    },
    "name": "reopen_pr_comment"
  }
}

Input Schema

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

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.0.0-developmentSep 6, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It clearly discloses the core state transition (resolved -> open), which is meaningful. It does not disclose permissions, idempotency, or behavior on already-open threads, but the single state change is adequately communicated.

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. Every word contributes to identifying the action and target.

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?

For a simple three-parameter state-transition tool, the description plus fully documented schema is nearly sufficient. It could be improved by explicitly naming the inverse sibling or noting that the thread must already be resolved, but nothing blocks correct invocation.

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 all three parameters (repo_slug, pr_id, comment_id) already have baseline descriptions. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb ('reopen') and a precise resource ('resolved comment thread on a pull request'), making the tool's action unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling resolve_pr_comment by inversion without needing to name it.

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 phrase 'resolved comment thread' implies the intended use case: reopening a thread that was previously resolved. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to alternatives such as resolve_pr_comment or update_pr_comment.

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