Azure DevOps MCP Server

List PRs without reviewer

list_prs_without_reviewer

List open pull requests without an assigned reviewer, optionally filtered by creation time within a specified number of hours.

Instructions

Find open pull requests that have no reviewer assigned, optionally within a time window. Use this for: 'which PRs have no reviewer?', 'unreviewed PRs in last 24 hours', 'PRs waiting for review this week'. Use the hours parameter to filter by creation date (e.g. hours=24 for last 24 hours). Omit hours to return all open PRs without a reviewer regardless of age.

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_prs_without_reviewer"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`project`	No	Azure DevOps project name or id. Defaults to AZDO_PROJECT if set.
`hours`	No	Only include PRs created in the last N hours. Omit for all time.
`top`	No	Max PRs to fetch. Default: 200.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 21, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden. It correctly implies a read-only operation and explains the hours filter, but does not mention pagination, ordering, or the top parameter's role. Key behaviors are hinted but not fully transparent.

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 two sentences plus examples, with no redundant text. Every sentence serves a purpose: it states what the tool does, provides usage examples, and explains parameter behavior. Highly efficient.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does not clarify what the tool returns (e.g., list of PR objects, fields). Context about response structure, error handling, or limitations is missing, making it incomplete for an agent.

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%. The description adds significant context for the 'hours' parameter with concrete examples and behavior on omission. The 'project' and 'top' parameters are not elaborated, but the schema already covers them adequately.

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 the tool finds 'open pull requests that have no reviewer assigned', which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes this from the sibling list_pull_requests by focusing on unreviewed PRs.

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 use cases (e.g., 'which PRs have no reviewer?') and explains the hours parameter. It lacks explicit exclusions or alternative tools for cases when reviewers are needed.

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

Deploy Server