Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
tfs-mcp-server

tfs-mcp-server

by rickey-cpu
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

tfs_get_pr_changes

Lists added, modified, and deleted files in the latest Pull Request iteration to review changes before detailed inspection.

Instructions

Lay danh sach file thay doi (them/sua/xoa) trong iteration moi nhat cua mot Pull Request. Dung de xem PR thay doi nhung file nao truoc khi review chi tiet tung file.

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": {
      "repositoryId": "<repositoryId>",
      "pullRequestId": "<pullRequestId>"
    },
    "name": "tfs_get_pr_changes"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
projectNoTen project TFS, bo trong neu dung TFS_DEFAULT_PROJECT
repositoryIdYesTen hoac ID cua git repository trong TFS
pullRequestIdYesID cua Pull Request

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It mentions the tool retrieves the latest iteration, indicating a read operation, but does not disclose authorization needs, rate limits, or error conditions. Adds some transparency but lacks depth.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The purpose is stated upfront, and the usage hint follows efficiently.

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 is provided, yet the description does not explain the return format (e.g., file paths, change types). The 'latest iteration' limitation could be ambiguous. For a tool with these gaps, the description should compensate with more detail.

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 100% with each parameter having a description. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 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 tool lists changed files (add/edit/delete) in the latest iteration of a pull request, differentiating it from sibling tools like tfs_get_pull_request which likely returns PR metadata, and tfs_list_pull_requests which lists PRs.

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 provides usage context (view files before detailed review) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. It implies this tool is for the latest iteration only, which is a constraint.

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