ado-workflows-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

add_pr_reviewer

Add a required or optional reviewer to a pull request by providing the PR URL or ID and the reviewer's Azure DevOps identity GUID.

Instructions

Add a reviewer to a PR.

Args: pr_url_or_id: A full PR URL or numeric PR ID. reviewer_id: Azure DevOps identity GUID of the reviewer. is_required: Whether the reviewer is required. working_directory: Optional path for context resolution.

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": {
      "pr_url_or_id": "<pr_url_or_id>",
      "reviewer_id": "<reviewer_id>"
    },
    "name": "add_pr_reviewer"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`pr_url_or_id`	Yes
`reviewer_id`	Yes
`is_required`	No
`working_directory`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.12.0May 30, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

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. It only states the mutation ('adds a reviewer') but lacks details on side effects, permissions required, or what happens on duplicate reviewer additions.

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 extremely concise: a one-line purpose followed by a clear list of arguments. Every element is meaningful, with no wasted words.

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?

While parameter descriptions are provided, the tool is a mutation with no annotations, and the description omits usage guidelines and behavioral traits (e.g., permissions, side effects). The presence of an output schema (not shown) reduces the need to explain return values, but overall the description is minimally adequate.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description compensates well by explaining each parameter's meaning and expected format (e.g., 'Azure DevOps identity GUID', 'full PR URL or numeric PR ID'). This adds significant value over the raw schema.

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 action ('add a reviewer') and the target resource ('to a PR'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'remove_pr_reviewer' and 'list_pr_reviewers'.

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 (e.g., when to add vs. remove a reviewer) or any prerequisite conditions (e.g., PR must exist, user must have permissions).

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

Deploy Server