Ares DevOps MCP Server

comment-on-pr

Post comments on Azure DevOps pull requests to provide feedback and track issues during code review.

Instructions

Leave a comment on an existing pull request

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "repositoryId": "<repositoryId>",
      "pullRequestId": "<pullRequestId>",
      "comment": "<comment>"
    },
    "name": "comment-on-pr"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`status`	No	Status of the comment thread	active
`comment`	Yes	Comment to add
`repositoryId`	Yes	ID of the repository
`pullRequestId`	Yes	ID of the pull request

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Apr 19, 2025

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only says 'Leave a comment' without disclosing side effects (e.g., notifications, thread creation) or authentication requirements.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single short sentence that efficiently conveys the action with no unnecessary words.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple tool with no output schema and clear sibling tools, the description is adequate but could be improved by mentioning the comment thread context or response format.

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%, so the schema already documents parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline but not compensating for missing details like comment formatting.

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 clearly states the verb 'Leave a comment' on the resource 'existing pull request', which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like create-pull-request or create-repo.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies use for commenting on an existing PR but provides no explicit guidance on when to use vs. alternatives like approving or merging, nor any exclusions.

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

Deploy Server