Fetches all pages in an Azure DevOps wiki to help teams review and navigate documented project knowledge quickly.
List pages within an Azure DevOps wiki
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| wikiId | Yes | The ID or name of the wiki | |
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether listing is recursive, whether results are paginated, or what permissions are required — all relevant for a wiki-tree listing. Only the read-only nature is weakly implied by 'List'.
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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is terse to the point of under-specification, but structurally clean.
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?
For a simple three-parameter list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. It omits behavior an agent would want (recursion, pagination, auth scope), leaving the definition adequate but with clear gaps.
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 coverage is 100% with all three parameters documented in the schema, including defaults for projectId and organizationId. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 specific verb (List) and resource (pages within an Azure DevOps wiki), which is clear enough to distinguish it from create_wiki_page or get_wiki_page. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the nearby search_wiki or get_wikis siblings.
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?
The description offers no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as search_wiki for filtered lookups or get_wiki_page for a single page. The agent must infer the routing decision from sibling names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.