Ares DevOps MCP Server

create-pull-request

Creates a pull request from a source branch to a target branch with a title and description in an Azure DevOps repository.

Instructions

Create a pull request from one branch to another

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>",
      "title": "<title>",
      "description": "<description>",
      "sourceBranch": "<sourceBranch>",
      "targetBranch": "<targetBranch>"
    },
    "name": "create-pull-request"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`title`	Yes	Title of the pull request
`description`	Yes	Description of the pull request
`repositoryId`	Yes	ID of the repository
`sourceBranch`	Yes	Source branch name
`targetBranch`	Yes	Target branch name

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Apr 19, 2025

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only says 'Create a pull request', adding no behavioral details beyond the name. It does not disclose side effects, permissions, or post-creation behavior.

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?

Single sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and gets straight to the point.

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?

The tool is simple with no output schema or nested objects, but the description is minimal. It does not clarify what the response contains (e.g., PR ID), which could be useful for an agent.

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?

All 5 parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 action 'Create' and the resource 'pull request' with source and target branches. It distinguishes from sibling tools like comment-on-pr and 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 Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The sibling tools provide context but the description itself lacks such information.

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

Deploy Server