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

testplan_show_test_results_from_build_id

Retrieve detailed test results for a specific build and project in Azure DevOps using the build ID. Simplifies test plan analysis and troubleshooting.

Instructions

Gets a list of test results for a given project and build ID.

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": "testplan_show_test_results_from_build_id"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
buildidYesThe ID of the build.
projectYesThe unique identifier (ID or name) of the Azure DevOps project.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
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 it 'Gets a list' (implying read-only), but doesn't describe the return format (e.g., structure, pagination), error conditions, authentication needs, rate limits, or whether it's idempotent. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 front-loads the core action ('Gets a list of test results') and specifies the key inputs. There is no wasted verbiage, making it easy to parse quickly for an AI agent.

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 tool's moderate complexity (2 required parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on return values, error handling, and usage context. Without annotations or output schema, the agent must rely heavily on the schema and name, leaving room for uncertainty in invocation.

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 description mentions parameters ('project and build ID'), but the input schema already has 100% description coverage with clear parameter details. The description adds minimal value beyond what the schema provides, such as implying these are required for fetching test results, but doesn't explain semantics like what constitutes a valid build ID or project identifier beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Gets') and resource ('list of test results'), specifying the required parameters ('for a given project and build ID'). It distinguishes from many sibling tools focused on builds, releases, repos, etc., but doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential test-related siblings like 'testplan_list_test_cases' or 'testplan_list_test_plans'.

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 (e.g., needing a valid build ID), exclusions, or comparisons to other test-related tools (e.g., 'testplan_list_test_cases'), leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and parameters alone.

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