Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Azure DevOps MCP Server

Azure DevOps MCP Server

by Tiberriver256
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

get_all_repositories_tree

Display a hierarchical tree view of files and directories across multiple Azure DevOps repositories in a project, using default branches, with optional depth and pattern filters.

Instructions

Displays a hierarchical tree view of files and directories across multiple Azure DevOps repositories within a project, based on their default branches

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": {
      "depth": "<depth>"
    },
    "name": "get_all_repositories_tree"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
depthYesMaximum depth to traverse within each repository (0 = unlimited)
patternNoFile pattern (wildcard characters allowed) to filter files by within each repository
projectIdNoThe ID or name of the project (Default: MyProject)
organizationIdNoThe ID or name of the Azure DevOps organization (Default: mycompany)
repositoryPatternNoRepository name pattern (wildcard characters allowed) to filter which repositories are included

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.0.6
    • addedInput schema / required
      Added value: +[
+  "depth"
+]
  2. Addedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the tree is built from each repository's default branch, which materially affects the result, but says nothing about permissions, traversal cost of a potentially large multi-repo tree, or result shape.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is well-sized for the scope it conveys, though it could have used remaining space for sibling routing.

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?

For a 5-parameter, read-oriented tree traversal with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the what and the default-branch semantics but omits return format, size/performance implications, and differentiation from the sibling tree/list tools. Adequate but with 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 each parameter (depth, pattern, projectId, organizationId, repositoryPattern) is already documented. The description adds no syntax, defaults, or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb (displays) and resource (hierarchical tree view of files and directories) with clear scope: across multiple repositories within a project, based on default branches. This distinguishes it implicitly from get_repository_tree (single repo), but it never names the sibling, so the differentiation is inferential rather than explicit.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative is named. The 'across multiple repositories' scope implies a contrast with get_repository_tree and list_repositories, but the agent must infer the boundary rather than being told.

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