Bitbucket MCP Server

get_commit_detail

Retrieve commit metadata, changed files, or full unified diff for a specific commit. Control output size by selecting detail level.

Instructions

Get details of a specific commit: commit metadata, changed file list, or full unified diff. Use detail level to control output size.

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>",
      "commitId": "<commitId>"
    },
    "name": "get_commit_detail"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`detail`	No	Level of detail: 'metadata' (just commit info), 'files' (changed file list without diffs), 'full' (unified diff for each file)
`commitId`	Yes	The commit SHA
`repoSlug`	Yes	The repository slug
`projectKey`	Yes	The project key (e.g., PROJ)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.3.1Jul 15, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description clarifies the tool is for retrieval and specifies the output types. It does not mention authentication or rate limits, but for a read-only tool this is acceptable.

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, front-loaded sentences with no wasted words. The critical information is presented first.

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 4 parameters (all documented), no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately covers the tool's behavior. It could mention output format variations, but the detail enum compensates.

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 coverage is 100%, so each parameter is already described. The description adds only brief context about the detail parameter's purpose, not significantly beyond the schema.

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 it gets details of a specific commit, listing three specific detail levels (metadata, files, diff). This directly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_repo_commits (list) and get_pull_request_diff.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description advises using the detail level to control output size, which implies when to choose each level. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like get_pull_request_diff for commit diffs.

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