Bitbucket MCP

request_pr_changes

Block a Bitbucket pull request from merging by requesting changes. Attach an optional message to specify what needs revision.

Instructions

Request changes 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>"
    },
    "name": "request_pr_changes"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`pr_id`	Yes	Pull request ID
`message`	No	Optional message
`repo_slug`	Yes	Repository slug

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.0.0-developmentSep 6, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

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. It does not disclose whether this action changes the PR review state, requires reviewer permissions, is reversible, or whether a message is expected. The behavioral impact beyond the phrase 'request changes' is left entirely implicit.

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 concise sentence with no filler or redundant wording. It is efficient, though it does sacrifice behavioral detail for brevity.

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 mutating review action with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the effect on the pull request, how it relates to sibling review actions, or what additional context the agent should consider before invoking it.

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%, so the parameters are already documented. The description adds no extra meaning about message intent, pr_id usage, or repo_slug context, but it does not need to because the schema handles parameter semantics.

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 clearly states the verb and resource: it requests changes on a pull request. It is distinct enough from obvious siblings like approve_pull_request, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from update_pull_request or add_pr_comment.

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 use this tool versus alternatives such as approve_pull_request, unapprove_pull_request, or add_pr_comment. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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