Retrieve wiki details for an Azure DevOps project by specifying the project and organization, so you can inspect available wikis before using them.
Get details of wikis in a project
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| projectId | No | The ID or name of the project (Default: MyProject) | |
| organizationId | No | The ID or name of the organization (Default: mycompany) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.6Input schema / properties / organizationId / anyOfRemoved value: -[
- {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "not": {}
- },
- {
- "type": "string"
- }
- ]
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
-]Input schema / properties / organizationId / typeAdded value: +[
+ "string",
+ "null"
+]Input schema / properties / projectId / anyOfRemoved value: -[
- {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "not": {}
- },
- {
- "type": "string"
- }
- ]
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
-]Input schema / properties / projectId / typeAdded value: +[
+ "string",
+ "null"
+]v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it says nothing beyond the name. It does not disclose that it is read-only, whether results are paginated, what the 'details' contain, or how defaults (MyProject/mycompany) resolve.
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?
A single short sentence with no wasted words, but its brevity comes from under-specification rather than tightness. Nothing is front-loaded beyond the bare verb and noun.
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?
No output schema, no annotations, and two optional parameters whose defaulting behavior is unexplained. The description does not clarify whether this returns a collection or a single wiki, leaving a meaningful gap for the calling agent.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so both projectId and organizationId are already documented with defaults in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.
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?
States a verb ('Get') and resource ('wikis'), but 'wikis' plural is ambiguous against siblings like get_wiki_page, list_wiki_pages, and create_wiki. It is not clear whether this returns a list of wikis or a single wiki's details, so an agent cannot distinguish it from siblings without opening the schema.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the related siblings (get_wiki_page, list_wiki_pages, search_wiki). The agent is left to infer usage entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.