Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Azure DevOps MCP Server

Azure DevOps MCP Server

by Tiberriver256
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

add_pull_request_comment

Add comments to Azure DevOps pull requests to review code, discuss changes, or provide feedback. Supports markdown, replies, and file/line-specific threads.

Instructions

Add a comment to a pull request (repositoryId optional; derived from pullRequestId when omitted)

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": {
      "pullRequestId": "<pullRequestId>",
      "content": "<content>"
    },
    "name": "add_pull_request_comment"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
statusNoThe status to set for a new thread
contentYesThe content of the comment in markdown
filePathNoThe path of the file to comment on (for new thread on file)
threadIdNoThe ID of the thread to add the comment to
projectIdNoThe ID or name of the project (Default: MyProject)
lineNumberNoThe line number to comment on (for new thread on file)
repositoryIdNoThe ID or name of the repository (optional; derived from pullRequestId when omitted)
pullRequestIdYesThe ID of the pull request
organizationIdNoThe ID or name of the organization (Default: mycompany)
parentCommentIdNoID of the parent comment when replying to an existing comment

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.1.10
    • changedInput schema / properties / repositoryId / description
      Previous value: -"The ID or name of the repository"New value: +"The ID or name of the repository (optional; derived from pullRequestId when omitted)"
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "repositoryId",
-  "pullRequestId",
-  "content"
-]New value: +[
+  "pullRequestId",
+  "content"
+]
  2. Addedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only states 'Add a comment' without disclosing key behaviors: whether it creates new threads or replies, or side effects like permissions required. The agent lacks insight into comment creation mechanics.

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, front-loaded sentence with no waste. However, it could benefit from slightly more structure, e.g., separating threading and file comment modes.

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 10 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is too minimal. It omits essential context about thread creation, file commenting, status usage, and reply behavior, leaving an AI agent underinformed for correct usage.

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 coverage is 100%, so description adds only minimal value: repeating that repositoryId can be derived. It does not explain complex parameters like threadId vs filePath/lineNumber, but baseline is 3 due to full schema descriptions.

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 ('Add a comment') and the resource ('pull request'), with a useful note about repositoryId derivation. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_pull_request and get_pull_request_comments.

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 offers a hint about repositoryId being optional but does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_pull_request or how to handle threading vs file comments. No explicit when-not or alternative references.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools