ado-mcp

ado_create_tag

Create an annotated tag for a specific commit in an Azure DevOps repository. Provide the repository, tag name, commit SHA, and annotation message.

Instructions

Create an annotated tag pointing at a commit.

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>",
      "name": "<name>",
      "objectId": "<objectId>",
      "message": "<message>"
    },
    "name": "ado_create_tag"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	Tag name
`repoId`	Yes	Repository name or ID
`message`	Yes	Tag annotation message
`project`	No	Project name or ID (defaults to ADO_DEFAULT_PROJECT)
`objectId`	Yes	Commit SHA the tag points to

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 30, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only states the action without disclosing side effects, permissions, idempotency, or error behavior. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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 sentence of six words with no wasted text. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could be slightly expanded for clarity.

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?

Without an output schema, the description should hint at return values or outcomes. It does not, and it also omits any mention of success/error conditions, making it incomplete for the tool's complexity.

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?

The input schema covers all parameters with descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Create') and the resource ('annotated tag') and specifies it points at a commit. This distinguishes it from the sibling tool ado_list_tags which lists tags.

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?

The description implies the tool is for creating annotated tags but provides no context on when to use it versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. It is adequate but lacks explicit guidance.

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

Deploy Server