Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ado-mcp

ado-mcp

by og-mcp
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

ado_create_push

Commit and push multiple file add, edit, or delete changes to a branch in Azure DevOps with a single action.

Instructions

Commit and push one or more file add/edit/delete changes to a branch in a single push.

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>",
      "branch": "<branch>",
      "comment": "<comment>",
      "changes": "<changes>"
    },
    "name": "ado_create_push"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
branchYesTarget branch to commit to, e.g. "main" or "refs/heads/feature"
repoIdYesRepository name or ID
changesYesFiles to add/edit/delete in this commit
commentYesCommit message
projectNoProject name or ID (defaults to ADO_DEFAULT_PROJECT)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations are empty, so description carries full burden. It states 'commit and push' but lacks details on side effects (e.g., branch creation, overwrite behavior) or required permissions.

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?

One sentence, zero waste, directly conveys the tool's action without unnecessary detail.

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?

Brief description omits preconditions (e.g., branch existence, repo access), operational context, and return behavior. Schema covers parameters but not workflow.

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%, baseline 3. Description adds no extra meaning beyond schema definitions; it merely summarizes the changes type.

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 verb (commit and push) and resource (file changes to a branch) in a single push, distinguishing it from sibling tools like ado_create_branch or ado_get_commit.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives like ado_create_branch or ado_create_pull_request. Does not mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools