Skip to main content
Glama
nikydobrev

Azure DevOps Multi-Organization MCP Server

by nikydobrev

pipelines_get_build_changes

Retrieve code changes and commits associated with a specific Azure DevOps build to track modifications and understand what triggered the build.

Instructions

Gets the code changes (commits) associated with a build

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
organizationYesThe name of the Azure DevOps organization
projectYesProject ID or name to get the build changes for
buildIdYesID of the build to get changes for
continuationTokenNoContinuation token for pagination
topNoNumber of changes to retrieve, defaults to 100
includeSourceChangeNoWhether to include source changes in the results, defaults to false

Implementation Reference

  • The async handler function that retrieves code changes (commits) for a build using the Azure DevOps Build API and returns them as a JSON-formatted text response.
      async ({ organization, project, buildId, continuationToken, top, includeSourceChange }) => {
          const connection = await connectionManager.getConnection(organization);
          const buildApi = await connection.getBuildApi();
          const changes = await buildApi.getBuildChanges(project, buildId, continuationToken, top, includeSourceChange);
          return {
              content: [{ type: "text", text: JSON.stringify(changes, null, 2) }],
          };
      }
    );
  • Zod schema defining the input parameters, including organization, project, buildId, and optional pagination and filtering options.
    {
        organization: z.string().describe("The name of the Azure DevOps organization"),
        project: z.string().describe("Project ID or name to get the build changes for"),
        buildId: z.number().describe("ID of the build to get changes for"),
        continuationToken: z.string().optional().describe("Continuation token for pagination"),
        top: z.number().default(100).describe("Number of changes to retrieve, defaults to 100"),
        includeSourceChange: z.boolean().optional().describe("Whether to include source changes in the results, defaults to false"),
    },
  • The server.tool() call that registers the 'pipelines_get_build_changes' tool, including its name, description, input schema, and handler function.
    server.tool(
      "pipelines_get_build_changes",
      "Gets the code changes (commits) associated with a build",
      {
          organization: z.string().describe("The name of the Azure DevOps organization"),
          project: z.string().describe("Project ID or name to get the build changes for"),
          buildId: z.number().describe("ID of the build to get changes for"),
          continuationToken: z.string().optional().describe("Continuation token for pagination"),
          top: z.number().default(100).describe("Number of changes to retrieve, defaults to 100"),
          includeSourceChange: z.boolean().optional().describe("Whether to include source changes in the results, defaults to false"),
      },
      async ({ organization, project, buildId, continuationToken, top, includeSourceChange }) => {
          const connection = await connectionManager.getConnection(organization);
          const buildApi = await connection.getBuildApi();
          const changes = await buildApi.getBuildChanges(project, buildId, continuationToken, top, includeSourceChange);
          return {
              content: [{ type: "text", text: JSON.stringify(changes, null, 2) }],
          };
      }
    );
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but only states the basic operation. It doesn't mention pagination behavior (implied by 'continuationToken'), rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or what 'code changes' entails (e.g., commit details, diff information), which is insufficient for a read operation with multiple parameters.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. It earns its place by clearly stating what the tool does, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with 6 parameters and a read operation. It lacks details on return values (e.g., format of changes), behavioral traits like pagination, and context for sibling differentiation, leaving significant gaps for an agent to use it effectively.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 6 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying 'buildId' is required, which is already in the schema. This meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without extra value.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb ('Gets') and resource ('code changes (commits) associated with a build'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'pipelines_get_builds' or 'pipelines_get_build_status', which reduces clarity about its specific role in the toolset.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a build ID), exclusions, or compare it to sibling tools like 'pipelines_get_builds' for broader build information, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/nikydobrev/mcp-server-azure-devops-multi'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server