Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Azure DevOps MCP Server

Azure DevOps MCP Server

by jafarimohammad
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

List pull requests

list_pull_requests

List pull requests across all repositories in a project or filter by repository. Filter by status and limit results. Use to find open PRs, PRs without reviewers, or all PRs in a project.

Instructions

List pull requests across ALL repositories in a project, or filter to one repository. Use this for questions like 'show all open PRs', 'which PRs have no reviewer', 'list PRs in project X'. Leave repositoryId empty to search the whole project at once.

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_pull_requests"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
projectNoAzure DevOps project name or id. Defaults to AZDO_PROJECT if set.
repositoryIdNoRepository id or name. Omit to get PRs across all repositories in the project.
statusNoPR status filter. Default: active.
topNoMax PRs to return. Default: 100.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It discloses the scope (all or one repo) and implicit filters via parameters, but does not detail pagination behavior or ordering.

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?

Two-sentence description is concise, front-loaded with purpose, includes examples, and no superfluous text.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Adequately covers functionality and parameters for a list tool without output schema; lacks mention of return structure but that is acceptable per rules.

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 covers 100% of parameters; description adds value by clarifying optional repositoryId behavior and giving usage examples, exceeding the baseline of 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?

Description clearly states it lists pull requests across all repositories or filtered to one, with example questions. Distinct from siblings like get_pull_request and list_prs_without_reviewer.

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 examples of when to use, but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use.

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