Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Bitbucket MCP Server

Bitbucket MCP Server

by pdogra1299
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

list_directory_content

Read-only

Lists files and directories at a specified Bitbucket repository path so you can browse repository contents by workspace, repository, branch, and optional path.

Instructions

List files and directories at a repository path.

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": {
      "workspace": "<workspace>",
      "repository": "<repository>"
    },
    "name": "list_directory_content"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathNoDefault: root
branchNoBranch (default: default branch)
workspaceYesProject key (e.g., PROJ)
repositoryYesRepository slug

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changedv3.0.1
    • changedInput schema / properties / branch / description
      Previous value: -"Branch name (optional, defaults to default branch)"New value: +"Branch (default: default branch)"
    • changedInput schema / properties / path / description
      Previous value: -"Directory path (optional, defaults to root, e.g., \"src/components\")"New value: +"Default: root"
    • changedInput schema / properties / repository / description
      Previous value: -"Repository slug (e.g., \"my-repo\")"New value: +"Repository slug"
    • 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

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds the browsing scope but omits useful behavior: whether results are recursive or single-level, how large listings are paginated or truncated, hidden-file handling, and what happens when the path does not exist.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, but it is terse to the point of leaving out information that would help an agent call it correctly. Efficient rather than padding, so it earns a 4 rather than lower.

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?

With four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations beyond readOnlyHint, the description should at least sketch the shape of the result (flat list vs. tree, entry fields). It covers the core operation but leaves an agent guessing about the response and listing semantics.

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 all four parameters (path, branch, workspace, repository) are already documented with defaults. The description only echoes the path concept and adds no format, syntax, or edge-case detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 pairs a specific verb (List) with a specific resource (files and directories) and scope (at a repository path), making the operation unambiguous. It does not name or contrast with the obvious sibling get_file_content, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus get_file_content, list_branches, or list_repositories, and no note that workspace/repository are required while path/branch are optional. The agent must infer the selection criteria from the tool name alone.

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