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

ado-workflows-mcp

by grimlor
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

remove_pr_reviewer

Remove a specific reviewer from an Azure DevOps pull request using the PR URL or ID and the reviewer's identity GUID.

Instructions

Remove a reviewer from a PR.

Args: pr_url_or_id: A full PR URL or numeric PR ID. reviewer_id: Azure DevOps identity GUID of the reviewer. 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": "remove_pr_reviewer"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pr_url_or_idYes
reviewer_idYes
working_directoryNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.12.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only states that the tool removes a reviewer, without detailing side effects such as required permissions, error handling for non-existent reviewers, or the impact on PR review state.

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, containing one sentence for the purpose and a brief bullet-style list of arguments with no redundant information.

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 simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential parameters and action. However, it lacks behavioral context such as return values or potential errors, which would be helpful for an agent.

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?

Although the input schema has 0% description coverage, the description explains each parameter: pr_url_or_id as a full URL or numeric ID, reviewer_id as an Azure DevOps identity GUID, and working_directory as an optional path. This adds meaning beyond the schema but lacks constraints or examples.

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 'Remove a reviewer from a PR', specifying the verb, resource, and context, distinguishing it from sibling tools like add_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., update_pull_request or remove_pr_label), nor are there any preconditions or exclusions mentioned.

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