Bitbucket MCP Server

create_branch

Create a new branch from a specified commit, branch, or tag in a Bitbucket Server repository.

Instructions

Create a new branch in a Bitbucket Server repository

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>",
      "name": "<name>",
      "startPoint": "<startPoint>"
    },
    "name": "create_branch"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	The name for the new branch
`repoSlug`	Yes	The repository slug
`projectKey`	Yes	The project key (e.g., PROJ)
`startPoint`	Yes	The commit, branch, or tag to create the branch from (e.g., refs/heads/main)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.3.1Jul 15, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic function without mentioning side effects, error conditions (e.g., if branch already exists), required permissions, or return behavior.

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, clear sentence with no extraneous words. It is optimally concise.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with 4 required parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. It lacks information about return values or potential errors, which is needed for complete understanding.

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?

The input schema provides full descriptions for all 4 parameters (100% coverage), so the description adds no additional semantics. Baseline score of 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 (create) and the resource (a new branch) with the context (Bitbucket Server repository). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_branch or get_repo_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 (e.g., create_pull_request) or any prerequisites. The description lacks context on scenarios where branch creation is appropriate.

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