Skip to main content
Glama
sanscdm

bitbucket-mcp

by sanscdm
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Related Servers

Alternatives to bitbucket-mcp

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related Servers

    • Bitbucket MCP

      inconcept
      A
      license
      B
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      An MCP server for Bitbucket Cloud that enables managing pull requests, branches, and repositories in natural language from any MCP-capable client.
      23
      186 npm
      4
      MIT

    • Bitbucket MCP Server

      zhanglc
      A
      license
      B
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      An MCP server that provides tools for interacting with the Bitbucket API, supporting both Bitbucket Cloud and Bitbucket Server, enabling pull request, branch, file, code review, and search operations.
      19
      4,121 npm
      MIT

    • bitbucket-mcp

      matt-nann
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      MCP server for Bitbucket Cloud that enables reviewing, managing, and merging pull requests, assigning reviewers by name, reading files at a ref, and inspecting pipeline status from any MCP client.
      14
      MIT
    Deploy Server
    One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

    TDQS

    B3.2/5.0

    Scored across 32 tools

    Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool targets a distinct resource and action. Comment tools are differentiated by operation (list/add/inline/reply/edit/delete), and PR views are clearly separated by data type (diff, diffstat, commits, activity, build status). No two tools appear to serve the same purpose.

    Naming Consistency3/5

    Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (list_repos, create_pull_request), but there are notable deviations: data-view tools use a noun-first 'pr_' prefix (pr_diff, pr_commits, pr_activity, pr_build_status) and 'pipeline_steps' lacks a verb. The resource is inconsistently called 'pull_request' in some tools and 'pr' in others, and comment actions use varying prepositions (on, to). Still, the names remain readable and understandable.

    Tool Count2/5

    At 32 tools, the server exceeds the 'borderline' range of 16-25 and feels heavy. While many tools are justified for a Bitbucket API, there is some overlap (e.g., list_commits vs pr_commits) and the PR comment workflow alone accounts for six tools. The count would be more appropriate if consolidated or scoped tighter, such as focusing on core PR operations.

    Completeness3/5

    The pull request lifecycle is thoroughly covered (create, update, approve, merge, decline, comments, diff, commits, activity, build status). However, repository management is incomplete: there is no create/update/delete repo, and branch operations are limited to listing. These are notable gaps for a Bitbucket integration and could force agents to use external tools.

    Maintenance

    ActivityInactive
    ResponsivenessNo issues

    Resources