Skip to main content
Glama
pdogra1299

Bitbucket MCP Server

by pdogra1299
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

list_pr_commits

Retrieve commits from a Bitbucket pull request by workspace, repository, and pull request ID, with pagination controls and optional CI build status per commit.

Instructions

List commits in a pull request.

Input Schema

TableJSON 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. 'List' implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, but nothing is said about pagination defaults, result ordering, permissions, or the server-only nature of include_build_status beyond what the schema already notes.

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 zero filler, which is appropriately efficient. It is arguably under-specified for a six-parameter tool, but not verbose or wasteful.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only place return shape and pagination behavior could be explained, and it says nothing about them. The 100% schema coverage compensates for the parameter side, keeping this at a minimum-viable 3.

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 six parameters (including limit, start, and include_build_status) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format meaning beyond that, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 (List), resource (commits), and scope (in a pull request), so an agent can distinguish it from get_commit_detail or list_branch_commits. It is clear but does not explicitly name or contrast the nearest sibling (list_branch_commits), leaving that inference to the agent.

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?

The description gives no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. It does not tell the agent when to prefer this over list_branch_commits or get_pull_request_diff, so selection relies entirely on the name.

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