Azure DevOps MCP Server

get_prs_for_work_item

Retrieve pull requests linked to a specified work item in an Azure DevOps repository. Provide the repository name or ID and work item ID.

Instructions

Find pull requests linked to a work item

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": {
      "repository": "<repository>",
      "workItemId": "<workItemId>"
    },
    "name": "get_prs_for_work_item"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`project`	No	Project name
`repository`	Yes	Repository name or ID
`workItemId`	Yes	Work item ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.2Jun 3, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the core action without explaining nuances like whether 'linked' includes all PR states (open/closed), authentication requirements, or the shape of the return value. This is insufficient for an agent to predict tool 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?

The description is a single concise sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose. It contains no filler or redundant information, making it highly efficient.

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?

Given that there is no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns or at least mention the result format. It only says 'find pull requests', leaving the agent without enough context to interpret the response or handle edge cases. The simplicity of the tool does not justify this brevity.

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 already provides 100% coverage for parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra semantic detail beyond what the schema fields (repository, workItemId) already imply, but it does not need to compensate for any gaps.

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 uses a specific verb ('Find') and a clear resource ('pull requests') with a well-defined scope ('linked to a work item'). This distinguishes it from the sibling tool get_commits_for_work_item, which focuses on commits instead.

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 the tool should be used when there is a need to find PRs associated with a work item, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. It lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over the similar sibling get_commits_for_work_item.

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