ado-workflows-mcp

by grimlor

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

update_pull_request

Update an existing pull request's title, description, or linked work items to reflect changes or corrections.

Instructions

Update title and/or description of an existing PR.

Args: pr_url_or_id: A full PR URL or numeric PR ID. title: New title (optional). description: New description (optional). working_directory: Optional path for context resolution. work_item_ids: Optional list of work item IDs to link to the PR.

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": "update_pull_request"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`pr_url_or_id`	Yes
`title`	No
`description`	No
`working_directory`	No
`work_item_ids`	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?

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It only mentions 'Update' without explaining side effects, permissions, idempotency, or constraints (e.g., PR must be open). The term 'context resolution' for working_directory is vague.

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, front-loading the main action in the first sentence, followed by a clear bullet list of arguments. No superfluous content.

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?

With 5 parameters and no annotations, the description explains each param but lacks details on return value, error conditions, or behavioral nuances (e.g., whether at least one of title/description must be provided). 'working_directory' remains ambiguous.

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 description compensates well: it explains each parameter's purpose, including the meaning of pr_url_or_id, optional title/description, working_directory for context, and work_item_ids for linking. However, could be more detailed on 'context resolution'.

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 it updates title and/or description of an existing PR, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_pull_request, complete_pull_request, and set_pr_draft_status.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as retarget_pull_request or set_pr_draft_status. The description lacks explicit context selection criteria.

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

Deploy Server