Bitbucket MCP Server

get_pull_request_comments

Retrieve all comments posted on a specific pull request. Provide the project key, repository slug, and pull request ID to access feedback and discussions.

Instructions

Get comments on a specific pull request

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>"
    },
    "name": "get_pull_request_comments"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`repoSlug`	Yes	The repository slug
`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

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility. It only says 'get', implying read-only, but does not disclose if all comments are returned, pagination, ordering, or any side effects. Minimal behavioral insight.

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?

Single sentence of 7 words, no wasted text. Perfectly concise and front-loaded.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more context about return format, scope of comments (e.g., resolved vs unresolved), or any filtering. Currently too terse for a retrieval tool.

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% with descriptive parameter names and descriptions. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action (Get) and resource (comments on a specific pull request). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like add_comment or manage_comment, which could also deal with comments.

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 versus alternatives (e.g., get_pull_request_detail might include comments, manage_comment might retrieve individual comments). No context about prerequisites or typical use cases.

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