ado-mcp

ado_create_pr_thread

Start a comment thread on a pull request, optionally anchored to a specific file for targeted feedback.

Instructions

Start a new comment thread on a pull request (optionally anchored to a file).

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>",
      "content": "<content>"
    },
    "name": "ado_create_pr_thread"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`prId`	Yes	Pull request ID
`repoId`	Yes	Repository name or ID
`content`	Yes	Comment text (markdown)
`project`	No	Project name or ID (defaults to ADO_DEFAULT_PROJECT)
`filePath`	No	Attach the comment to a file path (omit for a general PR comment)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 30, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavioral traits. It only describes the action, not permissions, side effects, or response. Lacks safety context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Single sentence, efficient, no fluff. Could benefit from one more sentence on usage context.

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?

Tool has 5 params, no output schema, empty annotations. Description omits permissions, response format, and side effects. Incomplete for a creation action.

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 covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). Description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; baseline 3 appropriate.

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 'Start a new comment thread on a pull request' with optional file anchoring. Verb+resource is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like ado_reply_pr_thread.

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?

Usage context is implicit: create new thread vs reply or list. No explicit when-not or alternatives mentioned, but sibling name provides differentiation.

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

Deploy Server