Skip to main content
Glama
Tiberriver256

Azure DevOps MCP Server

by Tiberriver256
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

trigger_pipeline

Start an Azure DevOps pipeline run by ID, optionally specifying branch, project, variables, template parameters, and stages to skip.

Instructions

Trigger a pipeline run

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
branchNoThe branch to run the pipeline on (e.g., "main", "feature/my-branch"). If left empty, the default branch will be used
projectIdNoThe ID or name of the project (Default: MyProject)
variablesNoVariables to pass to the pipeline run
pipelineIdYesThe numeric ID of the pipeline to trigger
stagesToSkipNoStages to skip in the pipeline run
templateParametersNoParameters for template-based pipelines

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv1.0.6
    • addedInput schema / properties / pipelineId / maximum
      Added value: +9007199254740991
    • addedInput schema / properties / templateParameters / propertyNames
      Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / variables / propertyNames
      Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Addedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states only the action and discloses nothing about side effects, permissions, asynchronous behavior, output, or effects on existing runs.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The four-word phrase is front-loaded and free of filler, but it is too small for a six-parameter mutation with nested objects and no annotations. The size does not match the complexity.

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 a mutation tool with six parameters, nested variables/templateParameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description omits usage criteria and behavioral context. The rich schema covers parameters but not when/why to use this tool.

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 the schema already documents all six parameters in detail. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond 'pipeline run' and is not expected to compensate.

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 names a specific action ('Trigger') and resource ('pipeline run'), so the core operation is clear. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like list_pipelines/get_pipeline or state scope, so it stops short of a 5.

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 alternatives, no prerequisites or exclusions. An agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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