Azure DevOps MCP Server

Get build logs

get_build_logs

Fetches console logs from a specific build to identify errors, failure reasons, or issues. Returns log text per stage/task, truncating large entries to the last 150 lines.

Instructions

Fetch the console log output of a build. Use this when the user asks for build logs, error details, failure reason, or what went wrong in a build. Returns log text per stage/task. Large logs are automatically truncated to the last 150 lines per entry.

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": {
      "buildId": "<buildId>"
    },
    "name": "get_build_logs"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`project`	No	Azure DevOps project name or id. Defaults to AZDO_PROJECT if set.
`buildId`	Yes	Build id (from get_last_build or list_builds).
`maxLinesPerEntry`	No	Max lines to return per log entry. Default: 150.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 21, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that logs are returned per stage/task and that large logs are truncated to the last 150 lines. This is good for a read-only operation.

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?

Three concise sentences with no filler. First sentence states purpose, second gives usage, third describes behavior and format.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Despite no output schema, the description hints at output structure ('log text per stage/task') and covers truncation. Parameters are well-documented. The tool is simple and complete.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 3 parameters. The description adds context about truncation and per-stage return, enhancing the schema's info.

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 'Fetch the console log output of a build' and explicitly lists use cases like 'when the user asks for build logs, error details, failure reason, or what went wrong in a build.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_build or list_builds.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides explicit when-to-use guidance by listing scenarios. It doesn't explicitly say when not to use or compare to siblings, but the context of sibling tools (e.g., get_last_build, list_builds) makes the choice clear.

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

Deploy Server