ado-mcp

ado_list_pull_requests

Read-only

List pull requests in a repository with optional filters by status, source branch, or target branch.

Instructions

List pull requests in a repository, filterable by status and source/target branch.

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": "ado_list_pull_requests"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`top`	No
`skip`	No
`repoId`	Yes	Repository name or ID
`status`	No	Filter by status (default active)
`project`	No	Project name or ID (defaults to ADO_DEFAULT_PROJECT)
`sourceBranch`	No	Filter by source branch
`targetBranch`	No	Filter by target branch

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 30, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, confirming a read operation. The description adds that filters are available but does not disclose pagination behavior, return format, or additional traits. Value is added but limited 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?

A single sentence of 14 words efficiently conveys the tool's purpose, scope, and key filters. There is no redundancy or unnecessary information.

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?

No output schema is present, but the description does not explain the return structure. It also omits default status behavior and project fallback. For a list tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, completeness is adequate but not thorough.

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 coverage is 71%, and the description mirrors some param purposes (status, source/target branch). It does not add new meaning or explain pagination (top, skip) or project default. Baseline 3 is appropriate as description repeats schema info without enhancement.

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 'List' and the resource 'pull requests' with scope 'in a repository'. It mentions filters by status and source/target branch, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_pull_request' which retrieves a single PR.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for listing multiple pull requests with optional filters. It does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives, but the context of sibling tools makes the use case clear. No prerequisites or conditions are mentioned.

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

Deploy Server