ado-mcp

ado_get_build_changes

Read-only

Get source changes (commits and work items) associated with a build using its build ID.

Instructions

List the source changes (commits/work items) associated with a build.

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": {
      "buildId": "<buildId>"
    },
    "name": "ado_get_build_changes"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`top`	No
`buildId`	Yes	Build ID
`project`	No	Project name or ID (defaults to ADO_DEFAULT_PROJECT)

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?

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., auth requirements, error behavior, or pagination). The description merely restates the read-only nature without enriching it.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose. However, it could include more context without becoming overly verbose.

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?

Despite the tool being a list operation with no output schema, the description does not hint at return value structure, pagination, or default behavior (e.g., ascending order). This gaps completeness for effective agent usage.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 67% (2 of 3 parameters have descriptions), but the overall description does not explain parameter semantics beyond the schema. The 'top' parameter lacks any description in both schema and tool description, leaving its purpose unclear.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('source changes (commits/work items) associated with a build'), clearly distinguishing it from related sibling tools like 'list_commits' (lists all commits) and 'get_build' (returns build details).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or distinguish usage from similar tools like 'ado_get_build' or 'ado_list_commits'.

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

Deploy Server