Bitbucket MCP Server

set_review_status

Set a pull request review status to APPROVED, NEEDS_WORK, or UNAPPROVED. Use one call to update the review outcome.

Instructions

Set review status on a pull request: APPROVED, NEEDS_WORK, or UNAPPROVED. One call, mutually exclusive states.

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>",
      "status": "<status>"
    },
    "name": "set_review_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`status`	Yes	The review status to set (mutually exclusive)
`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

A3.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It indicates mutation ('set') and mutual exclusivity, but does not mention side effects (e.g., overwriting previous status), permissions needed, or whether it triggers notifications. Minimal added value beyond the schema.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the action and enumeration. Every word adds value, with zero redundancy or irrelevant detail.

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?

For a simple mutation tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers the core action and constraints. However, it could mention the expected response or confirmation of the status change, but this is not critical given the tool's simplicity.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description reiterates the enum values and 'mutually exclusive' which is already in the schema's parameter description. No additional semantic value is provided.

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 (set), resource (review status on a pull request), and the specific allowed values (APPROVED, NEEDS_WORK, UNAPPROVED). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying the action and mutuality.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description implies when to use this tool (setting a review status) and highlights that states are mutually exclusive, suggesting a single call. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with other review-related tools like decline_pull_request.

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