Retrieve details of a specific pipeline in Azure DevOps. Specify pipeline ID to fetch configuration, version, and project context.
Get details of a specific pipeline
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| projectId | No | The ID or name of the project (Default: MyProject) | |
| pipelineId | Yes | The numeric ID of the pipeline to retrieve | |
| pipelineVersion | No | The version of the pipeline to retrieve (latest if not specified) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.6Input schema / properties / pipelineId / maximumAdded value: +9007199254740991Input schema / properties / pipelineVersion / maximumAdded value: +9007199254740991v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read operation but says nothing about permissions, whether a version must exist, how default/version resolution behaves, or what is returned—leaving the agent to guess.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than true conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
There is no output schema and the description does not describe the returned details, so return-shape expectations are left unclear. Given the crowded sibling set of pipeline-related tools, more disambiguation is needed for the agent to call it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so projectId, pipelineId, and pipelineVersion are fully documented in the schema (including the 'latest if not specified' default). The description adds nothing beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('pipeline'), so the basic action is clear. However, it does not distinguish this tool from close siblings such as get_pipeline_run, pipeline_timeline, or list_pipelines, nor does it characterize what 'details' means.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this versus get_pipeline_run, pipeline_timeline, or list_pipelines. Usage is only implied by the name ('get a specific pipeline'), with no prerequisites like required projectId context mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.