Skip to main content
Glama
dockndevai

mcp-azure-devops

by dockndevai
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Get pull request

get_pull_request
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a specific Azure DevOps pull request by ID to view its source and target branches, status, and reviewers.

Instructions

Fetch a single pull request by id, including its source/target branches, status, and reviewers.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesPull request id (from list_pull_requests)
repoYesRepository id or name (from list_repositories)
projectYesProject name or id (must be within AZDO_PROJECT_ALLOWLIST when that is set)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv0.2.3
    • addedInput schema / properties / id / description
      Added value: +"Pull request id (from list_pull_requests)"
    • addedInput schema / properties / project / description
      Added value: +"Project name or id (must be within AZDO_PROJECT_ALLOWLIST when that is set)"
    • addedInput schema / properties / repo / description
      Added value: +"Repository id or name (from list_repositories)"
  2. Changed3 schema fields changedv0.2.2
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
    • addedInput schema / properties / id / maximum
      Added value: +9007199254740991
    • addedInput schema / properties / id / minimum
      Added value: +-9007199254740991
  3. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by specifying the response content (branches, status, reviewers), which is not in annotations. No contradictions.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. Every word adds value without redundancy.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the simple read-only nature, rich annotations, and full schema coverage, the description is sufficient. It mentions the key returned fields, and no output schema exists to require extra explanation. It could note error handling, but that is not expected for a fetch 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% with clear parameter descriptions for id, repo, and project. The tool description does not add any additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it fetches a single pull request by id and lists the included fields (source/target branches, status, reviewers). This is specific and distinguishes it from list_pull_requests which fetches multiple. The verb 'Fetch' and resource 'pull request' make the purpose unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage when a specific pull request id is available (since it says 'by id'), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives like list_pull_requests or when not to use this tool. The context is implied rather than stated.

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