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

tfs-mcp-server

by rickey-cpu
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

tfs_get_pull_request

Retrieve details of a pull request, including description, creator, reviewers, and status, to prepare for review.

Instructions

Lay chi tiet mot Pull Request cu the: mo ta, nguoi tao, reviewer, trang thai. Dung truoc khi review noi dung PR.

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_pull_request"
  }
}

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

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It accurately indicates what is returned (description, creator, reviewer, status) and implies read-only behavior. However, it lacks details on error conditions, permissions, or rate limits.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, no redundancy. The main action is front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to quickly understand the purpose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple fetch tool, the description combined with 100% schema coverage is fairly complete. It explains what the tool returns and when to use it. A slight deduction for not specifying the output format, but acceptable given typical MCP expectations.

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?

The input schema covers all three parameters with descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline 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 action (get) and resource (specific Pull Request), lists key fields (description, creator, reviewer, status), and distinguishes from sibling tools like tfs_get_pr_changes and tfs_list_pull_requests.

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 explicitly advises using this tool before reviewing PR content ('Dung truoc khi review noi dung PR'), providing clear context. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use, but the sibling tools are implicitly differentiated.

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