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

repo_list_pull_requests_by_commits

Find pull requests containing specific commits in an Azure DevOps repository. Query by commit IDs to accurately track and manage code changes across project branches.

Instructions

Lists pull requests by commit IDs to find which pull requests contain specific commits

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>",
      "repository": "<repository>",
      "commits": "<commits>"
    },
    "name": "repo_list_pull_requests_by_commits"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
commitsYesArray of commit IDs to query for
projectYesProject name or ID
queryTypeNoType of query to performLastMergeCommit
repositoryYesRepository name or ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. It doesn't describe what the tool returns (e.g., format, pagination), error conditions, rate limits, authentication needs, or whether it's a read-only operation. The description only states what it does at a high level without operational details.

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, efficient sentence that clearly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the essential information.

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?

Given the tool has no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. For a tool with 4 parameters that queries pull requests by commits, users need more information about what the tool returns, error handling, and behavioral characteristics that aren't covered by the input schema alone.

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 already documents all four parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it mentions 'commit IDs' which aligns with the 'commits' parameter but provides no additional context about parameter usage or interactions.

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 the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Lists pull requests') and resources ('by commit IDs'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'repo_list_pull_requests_by_project' or 'repo_list_pull_requests_by_repo' by specifying the unique query mechanism based on commit IDs.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, when it's appropriate compared to other pull request listing tools, or any limitations in its functionality.

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