Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MCP Bitbucket

MCP Bitbucket

by mohitgoel188
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

bb_pr_approve

Approve a Bitbucket pull request as the authenticated user, making your approval visible to the team. Call only when the user explicitly asks for approval.

Instructions

Approve a pull request as the authenticated user. This is visible to the team - only call it when the user has asked for an approval.

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": {
      "pr_id": "<pr_id>"
    },
    "name": "bb_pr_approve"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pr_idYesPull request ID
repo_slugNoRepository slug/name; defaults to the repo detected from the current directory's git remote
workspaceNoBitbucket workspace

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations by noting that the approval is visible to the team. This is a real side-effect that an agent should understand before invoking the tool.

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?

Two short sentences carry the full message with no filler. The core action comes first, and the important usage caveat follows immediately.

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?

The description is sufficient for a simple, well-documented PR action: it states what it does, when to use it, and a key side-effect. The output schema and parameter descriptions cover the remaining operational detail, though it does not mention potential failure conditions or prerequisites.

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%, and the schema already documents pr_id, repo_slug, and workspace clearly. The description does not add parameter-level detail, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action: approve a pull request as the authenticated user. It does not explicitly compare itself to sibling tools like bb_pr_request_changes, but the approve verb makes the purpose unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives an explicit usage condition with a strong exclusion: 'only call it when the user has asked for an approval.' This is direct, actionable guidance that prevents inappropriate calls.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools