arcade-azure-devops-mcp

AzureDevops_CreatePullRequest

AzureDevops_CreatePullRequest

Create a pull request in Azure DevOps. Specify the project, repository, source and target branches, title, description, and draft status to propose code changes for review.

Instructions

Create a new 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": {
      "project": "<project>",
      "repository_id": "<repository_id>",
      "source_ref_name": "<source_ref_name>",
      "target_ref_name": "<target_ref_name>",
      "title": "<title>"
    },
    "name": "AzureDevops_CreatePullRequest"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`title`	Yes	Pull request title
`project`	Yes	Project name or ID
`is_draft`	No	Create as draft PR
`description`	No	Pull request description
`repository_id`	Yes	Repository name or ID
`source_ref_name`	Yes	Source branch (e.g., 'refs/heads/feature')
`target_ref_name`	Yes	Target branch (e.g., 'refs/heads/main')

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 9, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects, permissions needed, whether it is a mutating operation, or what happens after creation. For a tool that creates a PR, this is a significant omission.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single short sentence, but it merely restates the tool's name and lacks substantive content. It is under-specified rather than appropriately concise; the sentence does not earn its place because it offers no information beyond what the name implies.

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?

Given 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain return values, required branch formats, or any PR creation nuances, leaving the agent to rely solely on the schema without higher-level context.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about parameters, but the schema already documents each parameter (e.g., source_ref_name, target_ref_name) with clear descriptions, so no additional semantic value is needed.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Create') and the resource ('a new pull request'), which distinguishes it from list/search tools among siblings. However, it does not add any specifics about the PR creation process or what makes it different from other create tools.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or typical scenarios (e.g., 'use when you need to merge a branch'). The sentence only states the action without context.

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