Skip to main content
Glama
pdogra1299

Bitbucket MCP Server

by pdogra1299
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

create_pull_request

Open a Bitbucket pull request to propose merging source branch changes into a destination branch, with optional reviewers, description, and attachments.

Instructions

Create a pull request.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
titleYes
reviewersNoReviewer usernames
workspaceYesProject key (e.g., PROJ)
repositoryYesRepository slug
attachmentsNoLocal files to upload & embed (Server/DC only). Item: path string or {file_path, alt_text?, render?: image|link|auto}
descriptionNo
source_branchYes
destination_branchYes
close_source_branchNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed9 schema fields changedv3.0.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / attachments
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Local files to upload & embed (Server/DC only). Item: path string or {file_path, alt_text?, render?: image|link|auto}",
+  "items": {
+    "oneOf": [
+      {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      {
+        "properties": {
+          "alt_text": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "file_path": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "render": {
+            "enum": [
+              "image",
+              "link",
+              "auto"
+            ],
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "required": [
+          "file_path"
+        ],
+        "type": "object"
+      }
+    ]
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}
    • removedInput schema / properties / close_source_branch / description
      Removed value: -"Whether to close source branch after merge (optional, default: false)"
    • removedInput schema / properties / description / description
      Removed value: -"Description of the pull request (optional)"
    • removedInput schema / properties / destination_branch / description
      Removed value: -"Destination branch name (e.g., \"main\", \"master\")"
    • changedInput schema / properties / repository / description
      Previous value: -"Repository slug (e.g., \"my-repo\")"New value: +"Repository slug"
    • changedInput schema / properties / reviewers / description
      Previous value: -"Array of reviewer usernames/emails (optional)"New value: +"Reviewer usernames"
    • removedInput schema / properties / source_branch / description
      Removed value: -"Source branch name"
    • removedInput schema / properties / title / description
      Removed value: -"Title of the pull request"
    • changedInput schema / properties / workspace / description
      Previous value: -"Bitbucket workspace/project key (e.g., \"PROJ\")"New value: +"Project key (e.g., PROJ)"
  2. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

D1.6/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden for a mutation tool, and it discloses none of it. It does not state auth/permission requirements, whether the created PR is a draft, how branch conflicts are handled, or whether the operation is reversible. This is a serious gap for a 9-parameter write operation.

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 short but that brevity reflects under-specification rather than tight writing. There is no front-loaded structure or prioritization of information because there is almost no information at all.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a high-complexity mutation tool with 9 parameters, 5 required, 44% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. An agent has no way to know the return value, side effects, or how to correctly populate several fields.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 44%, and the description adds no parameter meaning at all. Key parameters like source_branch, destination_branch, title, and close_source_branch are bare strings/booleans in the schema with no explanation in either place, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description states a clear verb and resource ('Create a pull request'), so an agent knows the basic operation. However, it adds nothing beyond the tool name and provides no differentiation from siblings like update_pull_request, merge_pull_request, or decline_pull_request. It is the minimum viable statement of purpose.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the other PR-related siblings, no prerequisites (e.g., branches must exist), and no exclusions. The single sentence offers nothing about selection context.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools