Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Azure DevOps MCP Server

Azure DevOps MCP Server

by jafarimohammad
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Get pull request

get_pull_request

Retrieve full details of a single pull request in Azure DevOps by specifying the pull request ID and repository.

Instructions

Get details of a single pull request by id.

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>",
      "pullRequestId": "<pullRequestId>"
    },
    "name": "get_pull_request"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
projectNoAzure DevOps project name or id. Defaults to AZDO_PROJECT if set.
repositoryIdYesRepository id or name.
pullRequestIdYesPull request id.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

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 bears full burden. Minimal description ('Get details of a single pull request by id') adds no behavioral context beyond name, e.g., what details are returned, permissions, 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?

One sentence, nine words. No filler, every word earns its place.

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?

For a simple get-by-ID tool, description is minimally adequate. However, lacks output schema or hints about return shape, which would improve completeness given the context of many sibling tools.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all three parameters. Description adds no additional meaning beyond what schema already provides, so baseline of 3 applies.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Get details of a single pull request by id.' Distinct from sibling tools like list_pull_requests and create_pull_request, which handle multiple or creation.

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?

Implies usage for retrieving a specific pull request by ID, but no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives like list_pull_requests or list_prs_without_reviewer.

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