Azure DevOps MCP Server

get_pipeline_runs

Retrieve recent pipeline runs by project and pipeline ID, with optional branch and run count filters.

Instructions

Get recent runs for a pipeline

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": {
      "pipelineId": "<pipelineId>"
    },
    "name": "get_pipeline_runs"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`project`	No	Project name
`pipelineId`	Yes	Pipeline/definition ID
`branch`	No	Filter by branch
`top`	No	Max runs to return

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.2Jun 3, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get recent runs' and does not mention return format, default behavior (e.g., top=25), pagination, or any side effects, leaving significant behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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 a single concise sentence with no redundant words or filler. It is appropriately front-loaded and efficient, though it errs on the side of being too minimal.

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

Completeness2/5

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

With no output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse to provide complete context. It does not explain what a 'run' response looks like, how filtering works beyond parameter names, or why this tool might be preferred over similar getters. The four parameters and sibling tools suggest more contextual detail is needed.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all four parameters, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, leaving the schema to handle parameter explanation.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'recent runs for a pipeline', making the tool's purpose evident. It is distinct from siblings like list_pipelines by referencing runs specifically, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from related tools such as get_build.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as distinguishing pipeline runs from builds or releases. The description only states what it does without contextual usage cues.

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