ado-mcp

ado_approve_release

Destructive

Approve or reject pending release approvals to control deployment gating.

Instructions

Approve or reject a pending release approval. Destructive — gates a deployment.

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": {
      "approvalId": "<approvalId>",
      "decision": "<decision>"
    },
    "name": "ado_approve_release"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`project`	No	Project name or ID (defaults to ADO_DEFAULT_PROJECT)
`comments`	No
`decision`	Yes	Approval decision
`approvalId`	Yes	Approval ID (from ado_list_release_approvals)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 30, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations provide destructiveHint: true, but the description adds context by noting that the action 'gates a deployment,' explaining that approving/rejecting controls whether a deployment proceeds. This goes beyond the annotation's simple destructiveness flag.

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 consists of two succinct sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose immediately, and the second adds essential behavioral context about destructiveness. No superfluous words.

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?

While the description covers purpose and key behavior, it omits details such as how to obtain the approvalId (though implied by the schema) and what happens after the action (e.g., triggers deployment). The lack of an output schema increases the need for such context, which is only partially fulfilled.

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 75% (3 of 4 parameters have descriptions), and the tool description does not add any additional parameter information. The description itself lacks parameter details, so it does not improve understanding beyond the 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?

The description clearly states the verb (approve/reject) and the resource (pending release approval), immediately conveying the tool's function. It distinguishes from sibling tools like ado_list_release_approvals and ado_deploy_release by specifying the action on an approval.

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?

The description mentions 'Destructive — gates a deployment,' implying this is a serious action affecting deployment flow, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list approvals first, or deploy after approval). No prerequisites or when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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

Deploy Server