Bitbucket MCP Server

get_pull_request_diff

Retrieve the diff of a pull request to see all code changes and streamline the code review process.

Instructions

Get the diff of a pull request for code review

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_diff"
  }
}

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

B3.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Get the diff', indicating a read operation, but does not disclose details such as whether it returns inline diff or summary, or any side effects (none expected). The description lacks additional behavioral context beyond the obvious read.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the key action and purpose. It is efficient with no wasted words, though it could potentially include a bit more context without becoming verbose.

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?

Given the low complexity of the tool (3 required params, no output schema), the description provides the essential purpose. However, it does not mention the return format (e.g., unified diff) or any nuances, which would improve completeness for an agent.

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 description coverage is 100% for all three parameters with clear descriptions (e.g., 'The repository slug', 'The project key', 'The pull request ID'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so 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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'diff of a pull request', and specifies the context 'for code review'. It differentiates from sibling tools like get_file_diff (file-specific) and get_pull_request_detail (details, not 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 for code review but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_file_diff for individual file diffs, get_pull_request_comments for comments). No when-not or exclusions are provided.

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