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

ado-workflows-mcp

by grimlor
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

list_pull_requests

List Azure DevOps pull requests matching filters such as creator, reviewer, status, or repository. Get summaries with ID, title, status, and URL.

Instructions

List pull requests matching search criteria.

Returns PR summaries with id, title, status, web_url, and more.

Args: project: Azure DevOps project name. creator_id: Optional GUID to filter by PR creator. reviewer_id: Optional GUID to filter by reviewer. status: PR status filter (default "all"). repository_id: Optional repository ID for repo-scoped queries. top: Maximum number of results (default 50). working_directory: Optional path for ADO 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": {
      "project": "<project>",
      "creator_id": "<creator_id>",
      "reviewer_id": "<reviewer_id>",
      "status": "<status>",
      "repository_id": "<repository_id>",
      "top": "<top>",
      "working_directory": "<working_directory>"
    },
    "name": "list_pull_requests"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
projectYes
creator_idYes
reviewer_idYes
statusYes
repository_idYes
topYes
working_directoryYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.12.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes return fields (id, title, status, web_url) and parameter effects, but does not explicitly state it is read-only or disclose side effects, auth requirements, or rate limits. It adds value but is not fully transparent.

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 well-structured with a clear one-line purpose, a return summary, and a parameter list. It is concise (5 lines plus list) and front-loaded with the core action, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 the complexity (7 required parameters), the presence of an output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, parameters, and return type summary adequately. Missing pagination or ordering details, but these are acceptable for a listing tool with an output schema.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists all 7 parameters in an Args section with brief explanations (e.g., 'Optional GUID', 'PR status filter (default "all")'). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema types and names.

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 starts with 'List pull requests matching search criteria,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like 'get_pull_request' (single PR) and 'create_pull_request' (creation).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage by stating it lists pull requests with filters, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives. There is no mention of when not to use or why to choose this over similar listing tools among the 44 siblings.

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