Retrieve details for a specific Azure DevOps pipeline run by run ID, optionally scoped to a project or validated against a pipeline, to inspect status and results.
Get details for a specific pipeline run
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| runId | Yes | Pipeline run identifier | |
| projectId | No | The ID or name of the project (Default: no default project) | |
| pipelineId | No | Optional guard; validates the run belongs to this pipeline |
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 discloses almost nothing: not whether the call is read-only, what happens when the run ID does not exist, whether projectId/pipelineId mismatches cause errors, or what shape the response takes. Only the word 'Get' hints at a non-mutating read.
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?
It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is structurally clean. But the brevity is achieved by omission rather than efficiency — the one clause conveys little beyond the tool name.
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 annotations and no output schema, the description is the only place to learn what a successful result contains and how failures surface, and it says nothing about either. For a three-parameter lookup with an optional validation guard, that leaves real gaps for an agent deciding whether and how to call it.
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 the schema already explains runId, projectId, and the pipelineId guard, which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds no extra meaning about scoping, defaults, or the guard's error behavior.
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?
The description names a verb ('Get') and a resource ('details for a specific pipeline run'), so the basic intent is legible. However, it never clarifies what 'details' covers and does not distinguish this tool from adjacent siblings such as pipeline_timeline, get_pipeline_log, or list_pipeline_runs, which plausibly return overlapping information.
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 prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. An agent must infer on its own that this is the single-run lookup versus list_pipeline_runs or the timeline/log tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.