Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Azure DevOps MCP Server

Azure DevOps MCP Server

by Tiberriver256
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

create_pull_request

Creates a pull request in Azure DevOps, including reviewers, linked work items, and tags. Enables code review and work item tracking.

Instructions

Create a new pull request, including reviewers, linked work items, and optional tags

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>",
      "sourceRefName": "<sourceRefName>",
      "targetRefName": "<targetRefName>"
    },
    "name": "create_pull_request"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tagsNoList of tags to apply to the pull request
titleYesThe title of the pull request
isDraftNoWhether the pull request should be created as a draft
projectIdNoThe ID or name of the project (Default: MyProject)
reviewersNoList of reviewer email addresses or IDs
descriptionNoThe description of the pull request (markdown is supported)
repositoryIdYesThe ID or name of the repository
workItemRefsNoList of work item IDs to link to the pull request
sourceRefNameYesThe source branch name (e.g., refs/heads/feature-branch)
targetRefNameYesThe target branch name (e.g., refs/heads/main)
organizationIdNoThe ID or name of the organization (Default: mycompany)
additionalPropertiesNoAdditional properties to set on the pull request

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.0.6
    • addedInput schema / properties / additionalProperties / propertyNames
      Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Addedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It indicates a creation/mutation operation but does not disclose authentication requirements, side effects, notification behavior, or what happens to linked work items, reviewers, or tags after creation.

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 wasted words. It is appropriately terse for a one-line summary, though a complex 12-parameter mutation tool could benefit from slightly more structure around required inputs.

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 12 parameters (4 required), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits the required repository, branch, and title context, does not explain permissions or output behavior, and leaves the agent to rely entirely on the schema for invocation-critical details.

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 all 12 parameters including required fields and nested additionalProperties are documented in the schema. The description only lists a few optional fields (reviewers, linked work items, tags) and adds no syntax or meaning beyond what the schema already provides, matching the baseline of 3.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Create a new pull request') and clarifies scope with 'new,' which distinguishes it from update_pull_request and get_pull_request. It also names the main associative content (reviewers, linked work items, tags), so an agent can identify the tool without opening the schema.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives named. The agent is left to infer that this tool is for creating rather than updating or fetching pull requests, which is the minimum but not explicit guidance.

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