Bitbucket MCP Server

merge_pull_request

Merge a pull request in Bitbucket Server by providing project key, repository slug, pull request ID, and version. Optionally include a merge commit message.

Instructions

Merge a pull request in a Bitbucket Server 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>",
      "pullRequestId": "<pullRequestId>",
      "version": "<version>"
    },
    "name": "merge_pull_request"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`message`	No	The merge commit message
`version`	Yes	The current version of the pull request (required for merge)
`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

C2.7/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

No annotations are provided, and the description offers no behavioral details beyond the action. It does not disclose side effects, permissions, conflict handling, or whether the operation is destructive. The description carries the full burden but fails to disclose significant behavioral traits.

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, direct sentence with no extraneous words. It effectively communicates the tool's function in minimal space.

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 five parameters (four required) and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It lacks context on merge strategies, conflict outcomes, and expected results. An agent needs more information to use the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it does not clarify parameter usage or constraints.

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 ('Merge') and the resource ('pull request in a Bitbucket Server repository'). It distinguishes the tool from siblings by the specific action, but does not elaborate on scope or conditions.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'decline_pull_request' or 'update_pull_request'. An agent must infer appropriate context, and there is no explicit when-to or when-not-to advice.

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