Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Azure DevOps MCP Server

Azure DevOps MCP Server

by Tiberriver256
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

list_pull_requests

Retrieve pull requests from an Azure DevOps repository, filtering by status, creator, reviewer, branch, and pagination.

Instructions

List pull requests in a repository

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>",
      "top": "<top>"
    },
    "name": "list_pull_requests"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
topYesMaximum number of pull requests to return (default: 10)
skipNoNumber of pull requests to skip for pagination
statusNoFilter by pull request status
creatorIdNoFilter by creator ID (must be a UUID string)
projectIdNoThe ID or name of the project (Default: MyProject)
reviewerIdNoFilter by reviewer ID (must be a UUID string)
repositoryIdYesThe ID or name of the repository
sourceRefNameNoFilter by source branch name
targetRefNameNoFilter by target branch name
organizationIdNoThe ID or name of the organization (Default: mycompany)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.0.6
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "repositoryId"
-]New value: +[
+  "repositoryId",
+  "top"
+]
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv0.1.10
    • removedInput schema / properties / pullRequestId
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "If provided, return only the matching pull request ID",
-  "type": "number"
-}
  3. Addedv1.0.0

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 full behavioral disclosure. It states only the basic operation and omits pagination behavior, default result limits, permission requirements, and return characteristics, adding little beyond the schema's parameter definitions.

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 efficient, though arguably under-specified for a 10-parameter listing tool with no usage guidance.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The schema fully documents parameters, and there is no output schema requiring return-value explanation. However, the description still omits usage context and behavioral details such as pagination and default result sizing, leaving the agent to rely entirely on structured fields.

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 10 parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning about filters, defaults, or parameter interactions, which is acceptable but not value-adding.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'List pull requests in a repository.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from mutable siblings like create_pull_request or update_pull_request, though it does not explicitly name alternatives such as get_pull_request for retrieving a single PR.

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?

The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings, nor does it mention prerequisites, exclusions, or filtering scope. The agent must infer that this is the bulk-listing counterpart to get_pull_request, but that inference is not supported by the description text.

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