Skip to main content
Glama
Tiberriver256

Azure DevOps MCP Server

by Tiberriver256
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

get_project_details

Fetch Azure DevOps project details—process, work item types, fields, and teams—to enable AI assistants to analyze projects and automate workflows.

Instructions

Get comprehensive details of a project including process, work item types, and teams

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
projectIdNoThe ID or name of the project (Default: MyProject)
includeTeamsYesInclude associated teams in the project result
includeFieldsYesInclude field information for work item types
includeProcessYesInclude process information in the project result
organizationIdNoThe ID or name of the organization (Default: mycompany)
expandTeamIdentityYesExpand identity information in the team objects
includeWorkItemTypesYesInclude work item types and their structure

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.0.6
    • addedInput schema / required
      Added value: +[
+  "includeProcess",
+  "includeWorkItemTypes",
+  "includeFields",
+  "includeTeams",
+  "expandTeamIdentity"
+]
  2. Changed3 schema fields changedv1.0.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / organizationId
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "The ID or name of the organization (Default: mycompany)",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / projectId / description
      Previous value: -"The ID or name of the project"New value: +"The ID or name of the project (Default: MyProject)"
    • removedInput schema / required
      Removed value: -[
-  "projectId"
-]
  3. First observed

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. 'Get' implies a read, but nothing states permission requirements, whether the call is expensive (it fans out across process, work item types, and teams), or how the optional includes affect cost/response. It also omits that five of the include/expand booleans are marked required despite having defaults.

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; the content categories are listed up front. It is efficient, though minimally informative rather than maximally useful.

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 7-parameter tool with 5 required flags, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin: it doesn't explain what the returned detail looks like, how the include flags change the payload, or why they must be passed explicitly. Adequate for a trivial read, insufficient for this parameter surface.

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 every parameter is already documented in the schema, and a 3 is the baseline. The description adds only a generic restatement of three of the include flags and no syntax for projectId/organizationId resolution beyond what the schema says.

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 (project details) plus the content categories returned (process, work item types, teams), which is clear. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling tools get_project and list_projects, leaving the agent to guess which project-fetching tool applies.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as get_project (lighter fetch) or list_projects. The agent gets a purpose but no selection criteria among four project-scoped siblings.

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