AZURE DEVOPS ONLY -- List all wikis in a project (the project wiki plus any published code-as-wiki repos). Use this FIRST when the user doesn't know the wiki's exact name/id, or to confirm which wiki to target before reading/writing a page. Requires DEVOPS_ORG_URL + DEVOPS_PAT env vars.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project | No | Optional: Azure DevOps project name. Falls back to DEVOPS_PROJECT env var. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation, and the description adds useful behavioral context by emphasizing the Azure DevOps-only scope and the required DEVOPS_ORG_URL and DEVOPS_PAT environment variables. This helps the agent prepare prerequisites before invoking the tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and front-loaded, with every sentence delivering actionable information: scope, usage timing, and prerequisites. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only list operation with one optional parameter, the description covers the purpose, when to invoke it, and operational prerequisites. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and call this tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already fully documents the single optional 'project' parameter, including its fallback to the DEVOPS_PROJECT env var. The description does not add additional semantic details about the parameter, so the schema carries the burden, which is acceptable at 100% coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific action — 'List all wikis in a project' — and identifies the exact resource scope, including both the project wiki and published code-as-wiki repos. The 'AZURE DEVOPS ONLY' prefix and the list-oriented wording distinguish it from the sibling wiki page tools without ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly tells an agent when to use this tool: 'Use this FIRST when the user doesn't know the wiki's exact name/id, or to confirm which wiki to target before reading/writing a page.' This gives clear usage context, though it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or describe when not to use it beyond the implicit 'first step' framing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have distinct purposes and clear triggers, reducing ambiguity. For example, PR-related tools are separated into analysis, listing, commenting, and dependency mapping. However, some overlap exists between find_references, find_extensions, and find_callers, which could confuse an agent without careful descriptions.
Tool names follow a consistent snake_case pattern with verb_noun structure within subgroups (e.g., ado_*, find_*, search_*, generate_*). There is no mixing of camelCase or other styles, though the variety of prefixes slightly reduces predictability.
With 38 tools, the server feels slightly over-scoped for its domain. While each tool has a specific function, the number is high compared to typical well-scoped servers (10-15 tools). Some tools like find_references and find_callers could be consolidated.
The tool set covers a broad range of D365 F&O development and DevOps tasks, including code search, analysis, security, performance, upgrades, and work item management. Minor gaps exist, such as the absence of direct object modification or batch job management, but the core workflows are well covered.