ado-mcp

ado_update_pull_request

Update a pull request by changing its title, description, target branch, or draft state.

Instructions

Update a pull request: title, description, target branch, or draft state.

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>"
    },
    "name": "ado_update_pull_request"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`prId`	Yes	Pull request ID
`title`	No
`repoId`	Yes	Repository name or ID
`isDraft`	No	Toggle draft state
`project`	No	Project name or ID (defaults to ADO_DEFAULT_PROJECT)
`description`	No
`targetBranch`	No	Re-target the PR to another branch

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 30, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With empty annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool updates a pull request, but does not mention side effects (e.g., triggering CI, policy re-evaluation), permission requirements, or error scenarios. This is insufficient for a mutation 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 clear sentence that efficiently conveys the purpose and scope. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but not thorough. It lists the updatable fields but does not explain optionality, constraints, or the response. Some additional context 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?

Schema description coverage is high (71%), so the schema does most of the work. The description lists the updatable fields, adding slight context by grouping them together, but does not provide additional semantic details for the undocumented 'title' and 'description' parameters.

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 (update), the resource (pull request), and lists the specific fields that can be updated (title, description, target branch, draft state). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create, complete, abandon, etc.

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 the tool is for modifying an existing pull request's attributes. While it doesn't explicitly discuss when not to use it, the context of sibling tools (e.g., complete_pull_request, abandon_pull_request) makes the usage context clear. Lacks explicit exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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

Deploy Server