arcade-azure-devops-mcp

AzureDevops_ListPullRequests

AzureDevops_ListPullRequests

List pull requests in an Azure DevOps repository. Filter by status and limit results to review active, abandoned, or completed PRs.

Instructions

List pull requests in a repository.

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>"
    },
    "name": "AzureDevops_ListPullRequests"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`top`	No	Maximum number of PRs to return
`status`	No	Filter by status: Active, Abandoned, Completed, All
`project`	Yes	Project name or ID
`repository_id`	Yes	Repository name or ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 9, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does and fails to mention default behavior, filtering options, pagination, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a list operation.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It is appropriately sized for a simple list tool and every word earns its place.

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?

The tool is relatively simple and the schema covers parameters, but the description lacks contextual information about default status, result limits, or how to use the status filter. It is minimally sufficient but has clear gaps.

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 per the rubric, a baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description itself adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, but the schema fully documents all four 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 verb 'List' and the resource 'pull requests in a repository', which is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like ListRepositories or CreatePullRequest. It fully captures the tool's function.

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 mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the purpose is clear enough that usage is implied. No exclusions or alternative suggestions are provided, which is a gap.

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