Azure DevOps MCP Server

Create pull request

create_pull_request

Create a pull request in Azure DevOps to merge changes from a source branch into a target branch, with options for title, description, and draft status.

Instructions

Create a new pull request from a source branch into a target branch.

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": {
      "repositoryId": "<repositoryId>",
      "sourceBranch": "<sourceBranch>",
      "targetBranch": "<targetBranch>",
      "title": "<title>"
    },
    "name": "create_pull_request"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`project`	No	Azure DevOps project name or id. Defaults to AZDO_PROJECT if set.
`repositoryId`	Yes	Repository id or name.
`sourceBranch`	Yes	Source branch name (without refs/heads/).
`targetBranch`	Yes	Target branch name (without refs/heads/).
`title`	Yes	Pull request title.
`description`	No	Pull request description.
`isDraft`	No	Create as a draft PR. Default: false.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 21, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action without describing permissions, side effects, idempotency, or potential failures. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant information. Every word is necessary and earns its place.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the tool has 7 parameters (4 required) and no output schema, the description should provide more context about the creation process, return value, and prerequisites. It fails to do so, making it incomplete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The tool description adds no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, earning a baseline 3.

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 'Create a new pull request' with source and target branches, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools that list or get pull requests.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., update or merge). The verb and resource name make the purpose obvious, but no context about when not to use it is provided.

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

Deploy Server