Retrieve a pull request's activity stream—comments, approvals, and updates—to read the discussion thread and track review changes.
Get the activity stream of a pull request (comments, approvals, updates) for reading the discussion thread.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| repo | Yes | Repository slug, e.g. sigma-skills | |
| limit | No | ||
| project | Yes | Bitbucket project key, e.g. KD_SIGMA |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden; it does signal a read-only operation and tells the agent what kinds of events appear in the stream, which is genuine behavioral content. However, it says nothing about pagination behavior (the presence of a limit parameter suggests paging), result ordering, or whether the stream is truncated by default.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource and the returned content come first and the usage hint trails it. Nothing here could be cut without losing information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a four-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves too much unsaid: the identity of `id`, pagination semantics, and any indication of the shape of an activity entry. An agent could call it but might pass the wrong identifier or mis-handle paging.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is only 50%, so the description needs to compensate and does not. Critically, it never says that `id` is the pull request ID (an agent could read it as a project or activity ID), and it gives no meaning to `limit` such as default page size or maximum. Only `project` and `repo` are documented, and that documentation lives in the schema, not the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource ("Get the activity stream of a pull request") and enumerates the contents (comments, approvals, updates), so an agent knows what comes back. It stops short of naming which sibling to prefer — notably bitbucket_get_blocker_comments, which is a narrower slice of the same data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
"for reading the discussion thread" implies the use case, which is more than nothing, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of the obvious alternative (bitbucket_get_blocker_comments) or of how this relates to bitbucket_get_pull_request. The agent must infer the routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.