ado-mcp

ado_get_build_log

Read-only

Retrieve the full text content of a specific build log by providing build ID and log ID.

Instructions

Get the content (lines) of a specific build log.

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>",
      "logId": "<logId>"
    },
    "name": "ado_get_build_log"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`logId`	Yes	Log ID (from ado_get_build_logs)
`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

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is clear. The description adds that it retrieves 'lines', implying textual content. No contradictions, but no additional behavioral context (e.g., size limits, pagination) beyond what annotations provide. With annotations carrying the safety burden, a 3 is appropriate.

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 with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the action and resource. Could be slightly more informative but remains concise and structured.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple get operation with strong annotations and full schema coverage, the description is adequate. It implies the return is textual lines, covering the basic expectation. However, without output schema, more detail on return format could improve completeness. Still, it meets the needs for this tool.

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%, with all three parameters having descriptions (logId, buildId, project). The tool description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is correct when schema fully handles parameter documentation.

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 'Get' and resource 'content (lines) of a specific build log'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ado_get_build_logs (which lists logs) and ado_get_build (which gets build details), providing a specific and unambiguous purpose.

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. The description does not mention that users should first call ado_get_build_logs to obtain logId, nor does it provide when-not-to-use or exclusions. This leaves the agent without context for proper invocation sequence.

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

Deploy Server