Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Bitbucket MCP Server

Bitbucket MCP Server

by pdogra1299
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

list_pr_commits

Read-only

Retrieve commits in a Bitbucket pull request, with pagination and optional CI build status per commit.

Instructions

List commits in a pull request.

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>",
      "pull_request_id": "<pull_request_id>"
    },
    "name": "list_pr_commits"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMax results (default 25)
startNoPagination start (default 0)
workspaceYesProject key (e.g., PROJ)
repositoryYesRepository slug
pull_request_idYesPull request ID
include_build_statusNoCI status per commit (Server only)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed5 schema fields changedv3.0.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / include_build_status
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "CI status per commit (Server only)",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / limit / description
      Previous value: -"Maximum number of commits to return (default: 25)"New value: +"Max results (default 25)"
    • changedInput schema / properties / repository / description
      Previous value: -"Repository slug (e.g., \"my-repo\")"New value: +"Repository slug"
    • changedInput schema / properties / start / description
      Previous value: -"Start index for pagination (default: 0)"New value: +"Pagination start (default 0)"
    • 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

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description adds nothing on safety. It says nothing about pagination behavior, result ordering, or the Server-only limitation on include_build_status — all context an agent would want before calling.

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 efficient sentence with no filler. It is concise, but the brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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?

With 6 parameters, pagination controls, a platform-conditional flag, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It never mentions pagination defaults, ordering, or what a commit entry contains, leaving the agent to discover behavior at call time.

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 every parameter including limit, start, and include_build_status is already documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond that, which is the baseline for full-coverage schemas.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: list commits scoped to a pull request. The pull-request scoping implicitly distinguishes it from list_branch_commits and get_commit_detail, though neither sibling is named.

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 choose this over list_branch_commits or get_commit_detail, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer selection 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