Bitbucket MCP Server

get_file_diff

Retrieve the diff between two commits or branches for a file or all files in a Bitbucket repository.

Instructions

Get the diff between two commits or branches for a specific file or all files

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>",
      "fromRef": "<fromRef>",
      "toRef": "<toRef>"
    },
    "name": "get_file_diff"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`path`	No	Optional specific file path to diff
`toRef`	Yes	The target commit/branch/tag
`fromRef`	Yes	The source commit/branch/tag
`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

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It describes the core behavior (compute diff between refs) but lacks details on output format (e.g., unified diff), handling of large diffs, or behavior when path is omitted (all files). It is minimally transparent but misses edge cases and specifics.

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, compact sentence with 18 words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every part is essential. No verbosity 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 moderate complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides a sufficient overview of the tool's purpose. However, it could be more complete by mentioning the output type (e.g., unified diff) or limitations. Still, it is adequate for basic use.

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?

All 5 parameters are documented in the schema (100% coverage), and the description adds value by clarifying that the 'path' parameter is for a specific file and that omitting it diffs all files. This goes beyond the schema's attribute descriptions.

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 verb 'Get the diff' and the resource 'between two commits or branches for a specific file or all files'. It precisely defines the tool's function and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_commit_detail, get_file_content, 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 Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage when needing a diff between two refs, optionally filtered to a file. However, it does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus siblings like get_pull_request_diff or get_commit_detail, nor does it mention 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.