ado-mcp

ado_set_pr_vote

Cast a vote on a pull request in Azure DevOps to approve, reject, or set other review statuses.

Instructions

Cast a vote on a pull request (approve, approve-with-suggestions, reset, wait-for-author, reject). Defaults to the caller.

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>",
      "vote": "<vote>"
    },
    "name": "ado_set_pr_vote"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`prId`	Yes	Pull request ID
`vote`	Yes	Vote to cast
`repoId`	Yes	Repository name or ID
`project`	No	Project name or ID (defaults to ADO_DEFAULT_PROJECT)
`reviewerId`	No	Reviewer identity ID (defaults to the caller)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 30, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It notes 'Defaults to the caller' but omits critical details like permission requirements, whether previous votes are overwritten, error handling, or the impact of invalid vote values. This is insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke the tool.

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?

The description is a single, focused sentence (18 words) that immediately conveys the core action and options. Every word is purposeful, with no extraneous details.

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?

Despite moderate complexity (5 parameters, 3 required, no output schema), the description fails to explain the tool's return value or success/failure indicators. It does not address prerequisites like permissions or how errors are communicated, leaving significant gaps for agent decision-making.

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 the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no additional semantic information beyond the schema; it only reiterates default behavior mentioned in the schema's default value for reviewerId.

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 ('Cast a vote'), the target resource ('pull request'), and enumerates the five allowed vote values. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'ado_approve_release' which target different resources.

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?

The description does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the resource (pull request) differentiates it from release approval tools, there is no mention of prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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

Deploy Server