Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ado-workflows-mcp

ado-workflows-mcp

by grimlor
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_pr_author

Retrieve the display name, GUID, and email of the user who created a pull request in Azure DevOps using its URL or ID.

Instructions

Get the identity of a PR's creator.

Returns the display name, GUID, and email of the user who created the pull request.

Args: pr_url_or_id: A full PR URL or numeric PR ID. 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>"
    },
    "name": "get_pr_author"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pr_url_or_idYes
working_directoryNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.12.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Without annotations, the description only indicates a read operation (getting identity) but does not disclose any side effects, permissions, rate limits, or error conditions. It is minimal in behavioral transparency.

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 concise with a clear purpose statement and well-structured parameter docs. No extraneous information, and the most important details are front-loaded.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given that an output schema exists, the description adequately covers return fields. However, it lacks information about potential errors or prerequisites (e.g., the PR must exist). Still, it is fairly complete for a simple getter.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description provides clear parameter explanations: 'pr_url_or_id: A full PR URL or numeric PR ID' and 'working_directory: Optional path for context resolution', adding meaning beyond 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 'Get the identity of a PR's creator' and lists the specific fields returned (display name, GUID, email), making the purpose unambiguous and distinct from siblings like 'get_pull_request' which may return full PR details.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_pull_request' which may also include author information. The description does not mention preferred use cases or exclusions.

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