Bitbucket MCP Server

get_pull_requests

Retrieve pull requests from a Bitbucket repository, filtered by state such as open, merged, or declined.

Instructions

Get pull requests for a 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>"
    },
    "name": "get_pull_requests"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`state`	No	State of pull requests to retrieve (e.g., OPEN, MERGED, DECLINED, ALL)	OPEN
`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

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations present, the description carries full burden but fails to disclose behavioral traits such as pagination, sorting, output format, or authentication requirements. Only a high-level action is stated.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is too terse for a tool with multiple parameters and sibling variants. It sacrifices necessary detail for brevity, making it less helpful than it could be.

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 the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the output contains, how to paginate, or how to filter beyond the state parameter.

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 all parameters described. The description adds no additional 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 verb 'Get' and resource 'pull requests for a repository'. It is specific enough to distinguish from tools like 'get_pull_request_detail' which targets a single PR, but lacks mention of the optional state filter which affects purpose.

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 siblings like 'get_pull_request_detail' or 'search_repositories'. No context about prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions is provided.

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