ado-mcp

ado_complete_pull_request

Destructive

Merge a pull request in Azure DevOps with options to specify merge strategy, bypass policies, set custom commit message, and delete source branch after merge.

Instructions

Complete (merge) a pull request. Destructive — merges code and optionally deletes the source branch.

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": {
      "repoId": "<repoId>",
      "prId": "<prId>"
    },
    "name": "ado_complete_pull_request"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`prId`	Yes	Pull request ID
`repoId`	Yes	Repository name or ID
`project`	No	Project name or ID (defaults to ADO_DEFAULT_PROJECT)
`bypassPolicy`	No	Bypass branch policies (requires permission)
`mergeStrategy`	No	Merge strategy
`deleteSourceBranch`	No	Delete the source branch after merge
`mergeCommitMessage`	No	Custom merge commit message

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 30, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description adds context beyond the 'destructiveHint' annotation by specifying that merging code and optionally deleting the source branch are the destructive actions. It does not contradict annotations.

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?

Single sentence with concise clarification. No wasted words. Front-loaded with core action.

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?

Given 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core action and destructiveness. Could mention return behavior or failure scenarios, but is adequate.

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 100%, and the description only adds minimal extra meaning (e.g., mentioning source branch deletion). Baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents parameters.

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 action 'Complete (merge) a pull request' and identifies the resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'ado_abandon_pull_request' by emphasizing merging and destruction.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'ado_abandon_pull_request' or 'ado_update_pull_request'. The description implies usage for merging but lacks when-not or alternative context.

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

Deploy Server