Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Azure DevOps MCP Server with PAT Authentication

Azure DevOps MCP Server with PAT Authentication

by ennuiii
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

build_get_changes

Retrieve changes linked to a specific build in Azure DevOps, including source changes and paginated results, using project ID and build ID as inputs.

Instructions

Get the changes associated with a specific build.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "project": "<project>",
      "buildId": "<buildId>"
    },
    "name": "build_get_changes"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
buildIdYesID of the build to get changes for
continuationTokenNoContinuation token for pagination
includeSourceChangeNoWhether to include source changes in the results, defaults to false
projectYesProject ID or name to get the build changes for
topNoNumber of changes to retrieve, defaults to 100

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it's a read operation ('Get'), but doesn't mention pagination behavior (implied by 'continuationToken' in schema), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what 'changes' specifically refers to (e.g., code changes, status changes). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with 5 parameters.

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, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward retrieval tool and front-loads the essential information without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

For a tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'changes' means in this context, what format results return, or behavioral aspects like pagination. The 100% schema coverage helps, but the description should provide more context about the operation's scope and results.

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 fully documents all 5 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying 'buildId' is required. This meets the baseline of 3 when schema does the heavy lifting, but doesn't provide extra value like explaining relationships between parameters.

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 clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('changes associated with a specific build'), making the purpose understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'build_get_builds' or 'testplan_show_test_results_from_build_id', but the specificity of 'changes' provides some implicit distinction.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools in the build and test domains, there's no mention of prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or comparisons to similar tools like 'build_get_log' or 'testplan_show_test_results_from_build_id'.

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

Related Tools