Bitbucket MCP Server

create_pull_request

Create a new pull request from a source branch to a target branch in a Bitbucket Server repository, with title, description, and optional reviewers.

Instructions

Create a new pull request 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>",
      "title": "<title>",
      "fromRef": "<fromRef>",
      "toRef": "<toRef>"
    },
    "name": "create_pull_request"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`title`	Yes	The title of the pull request
`toRef`	Yes	The target branch (e.g., refs/heads/main)
`fromRef`	Yes	The source branch (e.g., refs/heads/feature-branch)
`repoSlug`	Yes	The repository slug
`reviewers`	No	List of reviewer usernames
`projectKey`	Yes	The project key (e.g., PROJ)
`description`	No	The description/body of the pull request

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.3.1Jul 15, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavioral traits. Only indicates 'create' (mutation), but lacks info on permissions, side effects, idempotency, or post-creation behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One efficient sentence of 9 words, front-loading the purpose. No fluff, though additional context could be added without sacrificing conciseness.

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

Completeness2/5

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

With 7 parameters (5 required) and no output schema, description is too minimal. Lacks context on branch formats, permissions, related workflows, or common use cases.

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 has 100% description coverage for all 7 parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what schema provides.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Create', the resource 'pull request', and the context 'Bitbucket Server repository'. It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'merge_pull_request' or 'decline_pull_request'.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives, no prerequisites or when-not-to-use instructions. Sibling tools suggest related actions but the description provides no comparative context.

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