Model Context Protocol server providing integration with Atlassian Data Center products (Jira, Confluence, Bitbucket)
Scoring was not performed
Critical: jira_createIssue and jira_updateIssue have NO visible input schemas in the provided source code. Only names and risk levels are documented. LLMs cannot call these tools without parameter guidance.
Critical: jira_transitionIssue has a description and risk level but NO visible input schema. The tool requires at least issueKey and transitionId, but these are not documented in the provided code.
High: NO output schemas are documented for any of the 28 tools. LLMs have no way to know what fields to expect from responses, making it impossible to plan downstream tool calls. E.g., does bitbucket_getProject return a 'projectKey' field? A 'key' field? This ambiguity forces unnecessary discovery calls.
| Scored | Grade | Overall | Spec posture | Rubric |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-09-22 | F | 36 | 2026-07-28+ | v2 |
| 2026-03-09 | F | 46 | - | v1 |
High: Parameter descriptions lack actionable constraints. Examples: bitbucket_getPullRequests 'state' parameter described as 'PR state filter' without listing valid values (OPEN, DECLINED, MERGED); 'order' described as 'Sort order field' without explaining what fields are sortable. LLMs will guess at invalid values.
High: Write operations (bitbucket_createPullRequest, bitbucket_updatePullRequest, confluence_createContent, jira_createIssue, jira_updateIssue) lack confirmation or dry-run patterns. Agents may accidentally create/modify resources, with no rollback capability documented.
Medium: Tool names contain ambiguous suffixes. 'bitbucket_getPR_CommentsAndAction' uses 'and' and an unclear abbreviation. Should be split: 'bitbucket_getPullRequestComments' and 'bitbucket_getPullRequestActions' to clarify what each returns.
Medium: Parameter descriptions for pagination (start, limit) are minimal. No minimum/maximum ranges documented (e.g., 'Pagination limit' doesn't say if it's 1-100, 1-1000, or unbounded). LLMs may request nonsensical page sizes.
Medium: Error handling strategy not documented. Tools do not include recovery guidance in descriptions (e.g., 'If a reviewer is not found, call bitbucket_searchUsers first'). Failure paths are not explained.
Low: bitbucket_createPullRequest and bitbucket_updatePullRequest document reviewers as arrays but don't specify the structure of array elements (user IDs? usernames? objects with {id, name}?). Makes the tool harder for LLMs to invoke correctly.