list_pull_requestsBrowse pull requests in an Azure DevOps project, optionally for one repository, and filter by status or result count.
List pull requests in a project, optionally for one repository.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| top | No | Max results (capped by policy.maxResults) | |
| status | No | active | |
| project | Yes | Azure DevOps project name | |
| repository | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond scope: it omits that results default to status=active, that results are capped/paginated, and what the return shape is. With annotations carrying the safety burden, this still leaves notable behavioral gaps.
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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, correctly leading with the primary action and scope. It is arguably under-specified rather than verbose, so conciseness itself is fine.
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?
For a read-only list tool with no output schema, four parameters, and only one required field, the description is thin. It omits the default active-status filtering and result-cap behavior that an agent should know before calling, though the schema partly compensates.
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 50%: 'top' and 'project' are documented in the schema, while 'status' (with its active default and enum) and 'repository' have no schema descriptions. The description only clarifies that repository is optional, adding marginal value over the schema.
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 and resource ('List pull requests') plus scope ('in a project, optionally for one repository'). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_pull_request, but the list-vs-get distinction is inferable from names.
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?
The phrase 'optionally for one repository' hints at the narrow-vs-broad query choice, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer get_pull_request, and no statement of prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.