Skip to main content
Glama
pdogra1299

Bitbucket MCP Server

by pdogra1299
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

merge_pull_request

Merge Bitbucket pull requests via workspace, repository, and PR ID; pass a version for conditional merge and to save a fetch.

Instructions

Merge a pull request. Pass version to save a fetch.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
versionNoEntity version from a prior read; supplying it saves a fetch AND makes the write conditional — it fails on concurrent modification instead of overwriting. Omit to write against the latest state (auto-retried once).
workspaceYesProject key (e.g., PROJ)
repositoryYesRepository slug
commit_messageNo
merge_strategyNoCloud only
pull_request_idYesPull request ID
close_source_branchNoCloud only

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed6 schema fields changedv3.0.1
    • changedInput schema / properties / close_source_branch / description
      Previous value: -"Whether to close source branch after merge (optional)"New value: +"Cloud only"
    • removedInput schema / properties / commit_message / description
      Removed value: -"Custom merge commit message (optional)"
    • changedInput schema / properties / merge_strategy / description
      Previous value: -"Merge strategy: merge-commit, squash, fast-forward (optional)"New value: +"Cloud only"
    • changedInput schema / properties / repository / description
      Previous value: -"Repository slug (e.g., \"my-repo\")"New value: +"Repository slug"
    • addedInput schema / properties / version
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Entity version from a prior read; supplying it saves a fetch AND makes the write conditional — it fails on concurrent modification instead of overwriting. Omit to write against the latest state (auto-retried once).",
+  "type": "number"
+}
    • 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 the full burden. It does not disclose that merging is an irreversible state change, what permissions are required, what happens to the source branch by default, or how merge conflicts/strategy defaults are handled. The 'Pass version to save a fetch' line merely restates schema content.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action, with no wasted words. The brevity is efficient, though the second sentence spends space duplicating schema detail instead of covering the gaps.

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?

For a 7-parameter, annotation-free mutation with no output schema, the description is too thin: it omits merge prerequisites, failure modes, and the effect of merge_strategy/close_source_branch defaults. An agent could call it, but without knowing the consequences or preconditions.

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 86%, so the schema already documents `version`, `merge_strategy`, `close_source_branch`, and the identifier parameters thoroughly. The description's `version` sentence is redundant with the schema's own (richer) explanation, so it adds no meaning — 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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Merge a pull request'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like decline_pull_request, update_pull_request, and create_pull_request. It stops short of naming any sibling or stating scope (e.g., required approvals), but the action is unambiguous.

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 merge versus decline or update, nor any prerequisites such as the PR being approved or conflict-free. The only contextual sentence is about the `version` parameter, which is invocation advice rather than usage guidance.

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