Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ado-mcp

ado-mcp

by og-mcp
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

ado_reply_pr_thread

Reply to an existing comment thread on a pull request to provide feedback or ask questions.

Instructions

Reply to an existing comment thread on a pull request.

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>",
      "prId": "<prId>",
      "threadId": "<threadId>",
      "content": "<content>"
    },
    "name": "ado_reply_pr_thread"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
prIdYesPull request ID
repoIdYesRepository name or ID
contentYesReply text (markdown)
projectNoProject name or ID (defaults to ADO_DEFAULT_PROJECT)
threadIdYesThread ID to reply to

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations present, so description must convey behavioral traits. It states 'reply' implying a write operation, but no details on side effects, permissions, or response type.

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, front-loaded sentence that clearly conveys the action. Not overly concise, but could include more detail without becoming 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?

No output schema and no annotations. Description lacks information about return value (e.g., reply object) and any success or error conditions. For 5 parameters and 4 required, more context would be beneficial.

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?

Input schema has 100% field description coverage. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 'Reply to an existing comment thread on a pull request', providing a specific verb and resource. Distinguishes from siblings like 'create_pr_thread' and 'list_pr_threads'.

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 or when not to use this tool. No mention of prerequisites or alternatives among sibling tools.

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