Bitbucket MCP

update_pr_comment

Update an existing pull request comment with new Markdown content by specifying the repository, pull request ID, and comment ID.

Instructions

Update a comment 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>",
      "content": "<content>"
    },
    "name": "update_pr_comment"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`pr_id`	Yes	Pull request ID
`content`	Yes	New comment content (Markdown)
`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

C2.9/5.0

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 'Update a comment' without mentioning whether the entire content is replaced, whether permissions are required, whether the operation is reversible, or what the response contains. For a mutating tool, this is a significant gap.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, but it is slightly under-specified for a mutation tool with no annotations or output schema.

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?

Given the lack of annotations, lack of an output schema, and the existence of closely related sibling tools, this description is not complete enough for an agent to confidently invoke it. It does not explain how the update behaves, what it returns, or when it should be chosen over other comment-related tools.

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 input schema already documents all four parameters with descriptions and 100% coverage, so the description need not add parameter details. The description does not contribute additional meaning beyond the schema, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 states a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('a comment on a pull request'), which clearly identifies the core operation. It is distinguishable from siblings like add_pr_comment, get_pr_comment, and resolve_pr_comment, though it does not explicitly specify that it updates the comment's content rather than its state.

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 add_pr_comment, resolve_pr_comment, or reopen_pr_comment. The verb 'Update' implies modifying an existing comment, but no explicit context or exclusions are provided.

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