Skip to main content
Glama
Tiberriver256

Azure DevOps MCP Server

get_repository_tree

Displays a hierarchical tree view of files and directories in an Azure DevOps repository from an optional start path, enabling quick inspection of repository structure.

Instructions

Displays a hierarchical tree view of files and directories within a single repository starting from an optional path

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYesPath within the repository to start from/
depthYesMaximum depth to traverse (0 = unlimited)
projectIdNoThe ID or name of the project (Default: MyProject)
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",
      +  "depth"
      +]
  2. Addedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Displays' signals a read-only operation, but it says nothing about authentication requirements, result size or pagination for large trees, or how depth traversal affects output volume.

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. Slightly compressed – it could have used the space to clarify the sibling relationship rather than restating the schema's path concept.

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 read-only traversal tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It omits how large trees are returned and how this differs from the all-repositories tree tool an agent must choose between.

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 documented in the schema, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds the idea of starting from a path but no syntax, format, or behavioral detail beyond the schema; it also calls the path 'optional' while the schema lists it as required.

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 and resource: 'Displays a hierarchical tree view of files and directories within a single repository'. The 'single repository' scoping implicitly separates it from get_all_repositories_tree, but it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the scope ('within a single repository ... starting from an optional path'), which suggests the multi-repo alternative, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative.

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