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

ado-workflows-mcp

by grimlor
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

set_pr_draft_status

Toggle a pull request between draft and published state using its URL or ID. Specify true to mark as draft, false to publish.

Instructions

Toggle a PR between draft and published state.

Args: pr_url_or_id: A full PR URL or numeric PR ID. is_draft: True to mark as draft, False to publish. 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>",
      "is_draft": "<is_draft>"
    },
    "name": "set_pr_draft_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pr_url_or_idYes
is_draftYes
working_directoryNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.12.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
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. It only states the action and arguments, without disclosing behavior like idempotency (what if already in target state?), authorization needs, or side effects.

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 single purpose sentence and a bulleted list of args. No fluff, appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 output schema exists, return values are covered. However, the description lacks behavioral context (e.g., error handling, state change confirmation) and does not fully guide an agent on typical use cases or edge cases.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning by explaining each parameter: pr_url_or_id as 'full PR URL or numeric PR ID', is_draft with True/False mapping, working_directory as optional. However, further details (e.g., URL format, context resolution) are omitted.

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 explicitly states the action: 'Toggle a PR between draft and published state.' It clearly identifies the resource (PR draft status) and the verb (toggle), distinguishing it from siblings like 'update_pull_request' which handles other fields.

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 for toggling draft status, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives (e.g., update_pull_request) or prerequisites like the PR existing. No exclusions or when-not-to-use are 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