Retrieve details for a specific Azure DevOps pipeline by ID, optionally scoped to a project and version, to inspect its configuration.
Get details of a specific pipeline
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| projectId | No | The ID or name of the project (Default: no default project) | |
| 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.
v0.1.54Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing beyond the bare retrieval intent. It does not state that this is a non-mutating read, whether projectId is needed to disambiguate a pipeline, how versions are resolved, or what error behavior to expect.
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 sentence with zero padding, and the resource is front-loaded. It is efficient, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined compression.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description is the only place a caller could learn what "details" actually contains (configuration, stages, version metadata). It omits that entirely and never mentions the version-selection semantics that matter for this tool.
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 pipelineId, projectId, and pipelineVersion are already documented in the schema, including the "latest if not specified" default. The description adds no meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 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?
"Get details of a specific pipeline" names a verb (get) and a resource (pipeline), but it essentially restates the tool name and adds only the qualifier "specific." It gives no basis for distinguishing this from close siblings such as list_pipelines, get_pipeline_run, get_pipeline_log, or pipeline_timeline.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (project scoping via projectId), and no routing to alternatives like list_pipelines for discovery or get_pipeline_run for execution data. The agent must infer the call context entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.