Skip to main content
Glama
jlromano

Bitbucket MCP Server

by jlromano

list_repositories

Retrieve all repositories within a Bitbucket workspace to manage codebases and access project files.

Instructions

List all repositories in a workspace

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
workspaceNoThe workspace slug (optional, uses default if not provided)

Implementation Reference

  • The core implementation of the listRepositories method in BitbucketClient.
    async listRepositories(workspace?: string): Promise<Repository[]> {
      const ws = workspace || this.workspace;
      if (!ws) {
        throw new Error('Workspace is required');
      }
      
      const response = await this.api.get(`/repositories/${ws}`);
      return response.data.values;
    }
  • The MCP tool handler case for 'list_repositories' that calls BitbucketClient.listRepositories.
    case 'list_repositories': {
      const workspace = args?.workspace as string | undefined;
      const repositories = await client.listRepositories(workspace);
      return {
        content: [
          {
            type: 'text',
            text: JSON.stringify(repositories, null, 2),
          },
        ],
      };
    }
  • Tool definition and schema for 'list_repositories'.
    {
      name: 'list_repositories',
      description: 'List all repositories in a workspace',
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {
          workspace: {
            type: 'string',
            description: 'The workspace slug (optional, uses default if not provided)',
          },
        },
      },
    },
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It implies a read-only operation ('List') but doesn't disclose critical traits like pagination, rate limits, sorting, error conditions, or authentication requirements. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate, though not contradictory.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core action ('List all repositories') and specifies the scope ('in a workspace') directly. Every element earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a simple input schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., pagination, errors), output format, or usage context. For a list operation that likely returns multiple items, more guidance is needed to help the agent use it effectively.

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 the parameter 'workspace' documented as optional with a default. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond implying the workspace context. Since the schema handles the heavy lifting, the baseline 3 is appropriate—no extra value but no gap.

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 ('List') and resource ('repositories'), specifying the scope ('in a workspace'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_repository' (singular) and 'list_branches'/'list_commits' (different resources). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'list_workspaces' or other list tools, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication), compare with 'get_repository' for single repos, or specify use cases like browsing vs. searching (contrast with 'search_code'). This lack of context leaves the agent without clear selection criteria.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/jlromano/bitbucket-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server