Skip to main content
Glama
ennuiii

Azure DevOps MCP Server with PAT Authentication

by ennuiii

build_get_status

Retrieve the status of a specific build in Azure DevOps by providing the project ID or name and build ID using Personal Access Token authentication.

Instructions

Fetches the status of a specific build.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
buildIdYesID of the build to get the status for
projectYesProject ID or name to get the build status for

Implementation Reference

  • Handler function that executes the tool logic: connects to Azure DevOps, retrieves the build API, and fetches the build report (status) for the given project and build ID.
    async ({ project, buildId }) => {
      const connection = await connectionProvider();
      const buildApi = await connection.getBuildApi();
      const build = await buildApi.getBuildReport(project, buildId);
    
      return {
        content: [{ type: "text", text: JSON.stringify(build, null, 2) }],
      };
    }
  • Input schema using Zod for validating project (string) and buildId (number) parameters.
    {
      project: z.string().describe("Project ID or name to get the build status for"),
      buildId: z.number().describe("ID of the build to get the status for"),
    },
  • Registration of the 'build_get_status' tool using server.tool(), mapping from BUILD_TOOLS.get_status, including description, input schema, and handler function.
    server.tool(
      BUILD_TOOLS.get_status,
      "Fetches the status of a specific build.",
      {
        project: z.string().describe("Project ID or name to get the build status for"),
        buildId: z.number().describe("ID of the build to get the status for"),
      },
      async ({ project, buildId }) => {
        const connection = await connectionProvider();
        const buildApi = await connection.getBuildApi();
        const build = await buildApi.getBuildReport(project, buildId);
    
        return {
          content: [{ type: "text", text: JSON.stringify(build, null, 2) }],
        };
      }
    );
  • Tool name mapping in BUILD_TOOLS constant: get_status -> "build_get_status".
    get_status: "build_get_status",
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'fetches the status,' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what the status entails (e.g., pending, success, failure). This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with a build system.

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 that efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the complexity of build systems and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It identifies the tool's function but doesn't cover behavioral aspects like response format or error conditions, leaving room for improvement in context.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both parameters ('buildId' and 'project'). The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints, but the schema provides adequate baseline information, justifying a score of 3.

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 ('fetches') and resource ('status of a specific build'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'build_get_builds' or 'testplan_show_test_results_from_build_id', which might also provide build-related information, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 related to builds (e.g., 'build_get_builds', 'build_get_log', 'testplan_show_test_results_from_build_id'), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions for selecting this specific tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Related Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/ennuiii/DevOpsMcpPAT'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server