ado-mcp

ado_create_release

Create a release from a release definition, with options for draft mode and custom artifact versions.

Instructions

Create a release from a release definition.

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": {
      "definitionId": "<definitionId>"
    },
    "name": "ado_create_release"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`isDraft`	No	Create as a draft release
`project`	No	Project name or ID (defaults to ADO_DEFAULT_PROJECT)
`artifacts`	No	Pin specific artifact versions (omit to use defaults)
`description`	No
`definitionId`	Yes	Release definition ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 30, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral transparency. It only states 'create a release' without disclosing whether it triggers a deployment, required permissions, side effects, or rate limits. Minimal insight into behavior.

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 concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the key action. Could be slightly more informative, but it earns its place efficiently.

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?

The description is too minimal for a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema. It does not explain what a release is, what happens after creation, or the role of artifacts. Given the complexity of the tool and lack of annotations, more context is needed for an agent to use it correctly.

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 80% (4 of 5 parameters have descriptions), so the schema already covers most parameters. The tool description does not add any extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, e.g., no explanation of 'artifacts' or 'isDraft' semantics. Baseline score of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('create a release') and the object ('from a release definition'), providing a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'deploy_release' or 'run_pipeline', which might cause confusion.

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 versus alternatives (e.g., deploy_release, run_pipeline). No prerequisites, context, or exclusions mentioned. The sibling list includes many release-related tools, but the description offers no disambiguation.

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

Deploy Server