Bamboo MCP Server

by mvadly

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Remote

get_plan_branches

List all branches of a Bamboo build plan by specifying its plan key to manage branching and build configurations.

Instructions

List all branches of a build plan.

Args: plan_key: The plan key (e.g., 'PROJ-PLAN')

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": {
      "plan_key": "<plan_key>"
    },
    "name": "get_plan_branches"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`plan_key`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 28, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It implies read-only operation ('List'), but lacks information about authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, or any side effects. The description is insufficient for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 extremely concise: two sentences with no unnecessary words. The purpose is front-loaded, and every part adds value. No fluff or redundancy.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is largely complete. It clearly identifies the input and action. However, it could briefly clarify that 'branches' are sub-configurations of a plan, but the core information is sufficient.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The sole parameter 'plan_key' has no description in the schema (0% coverage). The description adds an example format ('e.g., 'PROJ-PLAN''), which provides concrete guidance beyond the schema's title. This significantly aids understanding.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('List') and clearly identifies the resource ('all branches of a build plan'). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like list_plans (which lists plans) and get_plan (which retrieves plan details, not branches).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_plan or list_plans. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or when not to use it.

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