Skip to main content
Glama

ALM X++ MCP Server

by io.github.alimbenhelal-pro

ado_pr_dependency_map

Read-only

PR DEPENDENCY MAP -- Scan multiple Pull Requests and build a cross-PR dependency graph based on (a) shared X++/AOT objects and (b) branch chain relationships.

For each PR:

  • Lists X++ / AOT objects changed (from diff)

  • Detects OBJECT CONFLICTS: same object modified in multiple PRs => merge risk

  • Detects BRANCH CHAIN: if PR_A.targetBranch == PR_B.sourceBranch => PR_A must merge first

  • Computes RECOMMENDED MERGE ORDER (topological sort by branch dependencies)

Output:

  • Per-PR object table

  • Conflict matrix (object -> [PR list])

  • Dependency graph summary

  • Ordered merge sequence

Triggers: 'PR dependencies', 'ordre de merge des PR', 'conflits entre PR', 'quelles PR touche le même objet', 'dependency map PRs', 'merge order PRs', 'list PRs with objects', 'objets par PR', 'cross-PR impact'. Requires DEVOPS_ORG_URL + DEVOPS_PAT (Code: Read scope).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
topNoMaximum PRs to analyse (default: 30, max: 60).
statusNoPR status filter: Active (default), Completed, Abandoned, All.Active
projectNoOptional: Azure DevOps project name. Falls back to DEVOPS_PROJECT env var.
repositoryIdYesGit repository name or ID.
targetBranchNoOptional: filter by target branch, e.g. 'develop'.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already mark the tool readOnlyHint=true, and the description is consistent with that. It adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond the annotation by describing the object-conflict detection, branch-chain rules, ordered merge output, and the required DEVOPS_ORG_URL/DEVOPS_PAT scopes.

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?

The description is well-structured with a front-loaded purpose, followed by behavioral bullets, output types, triggers, and auth requirements. Though the trigger list is fairly long, it is useful for routing and the overall structure keeps the information scannable.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, but the description compensates by enumerating the concrete output artifacts: per-PR object table, conflict matrix, dependency graph summary, and ordered merge sequence. It explains the underlying algorithm and required credentials, making the tool sufficiently clear for a five-parameter tool.

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%: all five parameters have meaningful descriptions in the schema. The tool description itself does not add parameter-level detail, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already carries the burden.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific action, 'Scan multiple Pull Requests and build a cross-PR dependency graph,' and clearly explains the shared object and branch-chain logic. This distinguishes it from siblings like ado_list_prs or ado_review_xpp_pr, which focus on listing or reviewing individual PRs rather than cross-PR conflict and merge-order analysis.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives explicit trigger phrases for when to invoke this tool, such as 'PR dependencies', 'conflits entre PR', and 'merge order PRs'. It provides clear user-intent context, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name an alternative tool for single-PR scenarios.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All ALM X++ MCP Server toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes and clear triggers, reducing ambiguity. For example, PR-related tools are separated into analysis, listing, commenting, and dependency mapping. However, some overlap exists between find_references, find_extensions, and find_callers, which could confuse an agent without careful descriptions.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names follow a consistent snake_case pattern with verb_noun structure within subgroups (e.g., ado_*, find_*, search_*, generate_*). There is no mixing of camelCase or other styles, though the variety of prefixes slightly reduces predictability.

Tool Count3/5

With 38 tools, the server feels slightly over-scoped for its domain. While each tool has a specific function, the number is high compared to typical well-scoped servers (10-15 tools). Some tools like find_references and find_callers could be consolidated.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers a broad range of D365 F&O development and DevOps tasks, including code search, analysis, security, performance, upgrades, and work item management. Minor gaps exist, such as the absence of direct object modification or batch job management, but the core workflows are well covered.

Resources