Azure DevOps MCP Server

List failed builds

list_failed_builds

Identify builds that failed or partially succeeded within a specified time range to quickly spot broken pipelines and recent failures.

Instructions

Find builds that failed or partially succeeded in the last N hours. Use this for questions like 'آیا build شکست‌خورده‌ای داشتیم؟', 'failed builds in the last 24 hours', 'what broke today?', 'build failures this week'. Returns: pipeline name, result, branch, who triggered it, and when it ran.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_failed_builds"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`project`	No	Azure DevOps project name or id. Defaults to AZDO_PROJECT if set.
`hours`	No	Look back this many hours. Default: 24.
`includePartial`	No	Include partiallySucceeded builds. Default: true.
`top`	No	Max builds to return. Default: 50.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 21, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions return fields but does not state whether the operation is read-only, any side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or ordering behavior. The tool is likely safe but description lacks explicit disclosure.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two concise sentences plus a list of example queries. The examples add context but could be shorter. Overall well-structured and front-loaded.

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?

No output schema, but description explains return fields. Missing details on default project behavior, pagination, or sorting. Adequate for a filtered list tool but not fully 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%, baseline 3. Description adds value by explaining return fields and giving usage examples (e.g., 'آیا build شکستخوردهای داشتیم؟'), enhancing meaning beyond schema.

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?

Description clearly states 'Find builds that failed or partially succeeded in the last N hours' with specific verb (list/find), resource (failed builds), and scope (time window). It contrasts with sibling tools like list_builds (general) and get_build (single).

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?

Provides concrete query examples ('failed builds in the last 24 hours', 'what broke today?') showing when to use. Does not explicitly state when not to use or alternatives, but context from sibling names implies distinction.

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

Deploy Server