Bitbucket MCP Server

add_comment

Post comments, replies, inline code annotations, or blocker tasks on Bitbucket Server pull requests.

Instructions

Add a comment (general, reply, inline, or blocker task) to a pull request in Bitbucket Server

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": {
      "projectKey": "<projectKey>",
      "repoSlug": "<repoSlug>",
      "pullRequestId": "<pullRequestId>",
      "text": "<text>"
    },
    "name": "add_comment"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`text`	Yes	The content of the comment
`anchor`	No	Optional anchoring information for an inline/code comment
`parentId`	No	Optional ID of a parent comment to reply to (threaded comment)
`repoSlug`	Yes	The repository slug
`severity`	No	Optional comment severity. Use 'BLOCKER' to create a task, 'NORMAL' for a standard comment
`projectKey`	Yes	The project key (e.g., PROJ)
`pullRequestId`	Yes	The pull request ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.3.1Jul 15, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the action as additive ('Add a comment') but does not mention permissions, rate limits, side effects (e.g., notification triggers), or whether comments can be removed. The mention of 'blocker task' hints at a different use case, but overall transparency is minimal.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant information. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and its four modes of operation.

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 tool has a moderate number of parameters (7) with nested objects, and the description covers the core functionality. It does not detail the return format or error cases, but those are not expected without an output schema. The description sufficiently orients the user to the main use cases given the rich schema documentation.

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 adequate descriptions for each parameter. The description adds context by labeling the comment types (e.g., 'reply' maps to parentId, 'inline' to anchor, 'blocker' to severity), but this is a modest addition beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action ('Add a comment') and the resource ('pull request in Bitbucket Server'), and lists the specific comment types (general, reply, inline, blocker task). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_pull_request_comments (retrieval) and manage_comment (modification/deletion).

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage contexts by naming comment types but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't explain when to use manage_comment for updates/deletes. The guidance is limited to what the tool does, not when to choose it.

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