ado-mcp

ado_get_pipeline_run

Read-only

Retrieve the status and result of a specific Azure DevOps pipeline run using pipeline and run IDs.

Instructions

Get the status/result of a specific pipeline run.

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": {
      "pipelineId": "<pipelineId>",
      "runId": "<runId>"
    },
    "name": "ado_get_pipeline_run"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`runId`	Yes	Run ID
`project`	No	Project name or ID (defaults to ADO_DEFAULT_PROJECT)
`pipelineId`	Yes	Pipeline ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 30, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, which the description does not contradict. The description adds that the tool retrieves 'status/result', but it does not elaborate on response details or any behavioral constraints beyond the annotation.

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 that efficiently conveys the core purpose. However, it could include more detail without sacrificing brevity, such as listing required parameters.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a read-only tool with no output schema, the description provides only a vague idea of what is returned ('status/result'). Given the complexity of CI/CD pipelines, more detail on response fields would improve usability.

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?

All three parameters have descriptions in the schema, achieving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description adds no additional meaning about parameters, 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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'status/result of a specific pipeline run'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'ado_run_pipeline' or 'ado_list_pipeline_runs' by specifying it targets a single run's status/result.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites like requiring pipelineId and runId, or scenarios where this tool is preferred over, say, 'ado_get_pipeline' or 'ado_list_pipeline_runs'.

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

Deploy Server