Skip to main content
Glama
Tiberriver256

Azure DevOps MCP Server

by Tiberriver256
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

get_file_content

Read file or directory content from an Azure DevOps repository by specifying repository and path; optionally select branch, tag, or commit.

Instructions

Get content of a file or directory from a repository

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYesPath to the file or folder/
versionNoThe version (branch, tag, or commit) to get content from
projectIdNoThe ID or name of the project (Default: MyProject)
versionTypeNoType of version specified (branch, commit, or tag)
repositoryIdYesThe ID or name of the repository
organizationIdNoThe ID or name of the organization (Default: mycompany)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.0.6
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "repositoryId"
-]New value: +[
+  "repositoryId",
+  "path"
+]
  2. Addedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses almost nothing: it does not state that this is a read-only operation, how directories differ from files in the response, how binary content is handled, or whether a version defaults to the default branch. Only the file/directory scope is conveyed.

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 repetition. It is efficient, though so terse that it borders on under-specification rather than genuine conciseness.

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?

For a 6-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, a one-line description is inadequate. It omits return shape, directory-vs-file behavior, version resolution defaults, and any safety profile that the agent would need to invoke it correctly.

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 all six parameters including the versionType enum and defaults are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, which makes the baseline 3 appropriate here.

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 (Get) and resource (content of a file or directory from a repository), which is clear and actionable. However it offers no differentiation from siblings like search_code or get_repository_tree, so an agent must still infer which read tool fits the situation.

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 on when to use this versus search_code, get_repository_tree, or get_repository. The purpose implies retrieval, but no context, prerequisites, or exclusions are stated.

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