Azure DevOps MCP Server

get_pipeline_run

Retrieve details for a specific Azure DevOps pipeline run by run ID, with optional project and pipeline validation.

Instructions

Get details for a specific pipeline run

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": {
      "runId": "<runId>"
    },
    "name": "get_pipeline_run"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`runId`	Yes	Pipeline run identifier
`projectId`	No	The ID or name of the project (Default: MyProject)
`pipelineId`	No	Optional guard; validates the run belongs to this pipeline

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv1.0.6Sep 30, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / pipelineId / maximum
```
Added value: +9007199254740991
```
- addedInput schema / properties / runId / maximum
```
Added value: +9007199254740991
```
Addedv1.0.0Jan 2, 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 disclosure burden. It implies a read ('Get details') but never states read-only safety, required permissions, behavior for an unknown runId, or what the 'details' contain. For an unannotated tool this is a significant gap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no waste, but it is arguably under-specified rather than truly concise for a tool with three parameters.

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 should be doing more work: it never explains what 'details' are returned or how the optional pipelineId guard behaves on mismatch. The agent has enough to issue the call but not to interpret it.

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 runId, projectId, and the pipelineId guard are all documented in the schema itself. The description adds nothing beyond that baseline, which is the expected 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (details for a specific pipeline run), and 'specific' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling list_pipeline_runs. It does not, however, differentiate itself from get_pipeline, pipeline_timeline, or get_pipeline_log, which an agent must disambiguate by name alone.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives among the many pipeline siblings (list_pipeline_runs, get_pipeline_log, pipeline_timeline). The agent is left to infer context entirely.

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

Deploy Server