ado-mcp

ado_queue_build

Queue a build definition to run a pipeline, optionally selecting a source branch.

Instructions

Queue a build from a build definition, optionally on a source 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": {
      "definitionId": "<definitionId>"
    },
    "name": "ado_queue_build"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`branch`	No	Source branch to build
`project`	No	Project name or ID (defaults to ADO_DEFAULT_PROJECT)
`definitionId`	Yes	Build definition ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 30, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits like side effects, permissions, rate limits, or return value. It only states 'Queue a build', which implies mutation but lacks details on what happens after queuing or potential errors.

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?

Single sentence with 10 words, no fluff. Very concise, but could benefit from a brief note on return value or behavior without being 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?

For a tool with 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description lacks critical context: return type, error conditions, permission requirements, and how it differs from similar tools. Not complete enough for reliable agent invocation.

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%, so each parameter is already described. The description adds minimal extra context: 'optionally on a source branch' mirrors the optionality of the 'branch' parameter. Baseline 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 action ('Queue a build') and the resource ('from a build definition'), with an optional branch. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'ado_run_pipeline' (pipelines) and 'ado_list_builds' (listing).

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 versus alternatives like 'ado_run_pipeline' or 'ado_get_build'. No explicit when-not-to-use or prerequisites.

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

Deploy Server