ado-mcp

ado_create_pull_request

Create a pull request from a source branch into a target branch in Azure DevOps, specifying title, description, and optional reviewers or draft mode.

Instructions

Create a pull request from a source branch into a target 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>",
      "sourceBranch": "<sourceBranch>",
      "targetBranch": "<targetBranch>",
      "title": "<title>"
    },
    "name": "ado_create_pull_request"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`title`	Yes	PR title
`repoId`	Yes	Repository name or ID
`isDraft`	No	Create as a draft PR
`project`	No	Project name or ID (defaults to ADO_DEFAULT_PROJECT)
`description`	No	PR description (markdown)
`reviewerIds`	No	Identity IDs to add as reviewers
`sourceBranch`	Yes	Source branch, e.g. "feature/x" (refs/heads/ optional)
`targetBranch`	Yes	Target branch, e.g. "main"

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 30, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description fails to disclose behavioral traits. It doesn't mention that creating a PR modifies state, requires permissions, or that a draft PR behavior is controlled by isDraft. No error conditions or side effects are noted.

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?

The description is a single short sentence, achieving high conciseness. However, for a tool with 8 parameters and many siblings, it may be too brief, sacrificing completeness for brevity.

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 the complexity (8 parameters, no output schema, many sibling tools), the description is insufficient. It fails to explain the output, error conditions, or how the PR creation fits into broader workflows like adding reviewers or completing.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema; it does not explain parameter roles or provide examples, but the schema descriptions are already clear.

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 'Create' and the resource 'pull request', and specifies the key distinction of source and target branches. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ado_update_pull_request or ado_abandon_pull_request.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., ado_create_push or ado_update_pull_request). There is no mention of prerequisites or situations where this tool is inappropriate.

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

Deploy Server