Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ado-mcp

ado-mcp

by og-mcp
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

ado_get_diffs

Read-only

Retrieve the diff of changed files and commits between two branches in an Azure DevOps repository.

Instructions

Get the diff (changed files/commits) between two branches.

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>",
      "baseBranch": "<baseBranch>",
      "targetBranch": "<targetBranch>"
    },
    "name": "ado_get_diffs"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
topNo
skipNo
repoIdYesRepository name or ID
projectNoProject name or ID (defaults to ADO_DEFAULT_PROJECT)
baseBranchYesBase branch, e.g. "main"
targetBranchYesTarget branch to compare

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so agent knows it's safe. Description adds that it returns diffs (changed files/commits), providing useful behavioral context beyond annotations.

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?

Single sentence, concise and front-loaded with no unnecessary words. Every element is meaningful.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Description fully covers the tool's purpose and output type (diffs of files/commits). Annotations and schema provide remaining context. No gaps for a straightforward diff 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 67% (high). The tool description adds no parameter details beyond the schema, so 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?

Description clearly states 'Get the diff (changed files/commits) between two branches,' using a specific verb and resource. This distinctly differentiates it from sibling tools like 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 Guidelines3/5

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, or any exclusions. The purpose is implied but lacks context-sensitive advice.

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