Skip to main content
Glama

Related Servers

Alternatives to bitbucket-mcp

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • F
      license
      A
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables MCP-compatible clients to read repositories and source code from Bitbucket. Provides tools for listing workspaces and repositories, browsing directories, reading files, searching code, and inspecting commits and pull requests.
      12
      -
    • F
      license
      B
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables interaction with a Bitbucket Server/Data Center instance, exposing its REST v1.0 API as MCP tools to manage projects, repositories, branches, pull requests, comments, diffs, commits, files, search, and build status.
      41
      -
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      Enables AI agents to interact with Bitbucket Server (Data Center) via MCP, supporting reading pull requests and diffs, drafting and submitting reviews with verdicts, posting tasks, browsing code and commits, and managing pull requests.
      1
      ISC
    • A
      license
      B
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      An MCP server that provides tools for interacting with the Bitbucket API, supporting both Bitbucket Cloud and Bitbucket Server, enabling pull request, branch, file, code review, and search operations.
      19
      3,671 npm
      MIT
    • F
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Exposes Bitbucket Cloud repository and pull request data as tools consumable by any MCP-compatible client, with per-request authentication via the caller's own Bitbucket API token.
      -

    TDQS

    A3.7/5.0

    Scored across 18 tools

    Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool targets a distinct resource and action: local profile operations are clearly separated from Bitbucket API operations, and list/get/create/update verbs are consistently paired with specific objects like workspaces, repositories, branches, pull requests, and comments. There is no meaningful overlap or ambiguous boundary between tools.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    Tool names mostly follow a consistent list_/get_/create_/update_/set_/clear_ verb_noun pattern, which is predictable and readable. The main deviation is mixing 'pr' and 'pull_request' across related tools (e.g. get_pr_commits vs get_pull_request), which slightly weakens consistency.

    Tool Count4/5

    At 18 tools, the set is slightly above the ideal 3–15 range, but each tool addresses a distinct need across workspaces, repositories, branches, pull requests, comments, and local profile configuration. The count feels slightly heavy but not bloated.

    Completeness3/5

    The read side is well covered, and pull request creation plus commenting are supported, but notable lifecycle operations are missing: merge/approve/decline for pull requests, repository/branch write operations, and profile creation/deletion. These gaps prevent full CRUD/lifecycle coverage of the apparent Bitbucket domain.