Azure DevOps MCP Server

list_dashboards

Retrieve dashboard names and IDs for Azure DevOps teams to monitor project metrics and track progress efficiently.

Instructions

List team dashboards. Returns dashboard names and IDs.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_dashboards"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`team`	No	Team name (uses default project team if not specified)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Apr 18, 2026

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 full burden. It mentions the return format ('dashboard names and IDs') but doesn't disclose critical behaviors like pagination, sorting, default team handling, error conditions, or whether it's a read-only operation. For a listing tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise—two short sentences with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and efficiently specifies the return data, making it easy to parse.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and multiple sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return structure (beyond names/IDs), error handling, team defaults, or how it fits into the broader toolset. For a listing operation in a complex environment, this is insufficient.

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%, with the single parameter 'team' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond implying team dashboards are listed. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('List') and resource ('team dashboards'), and specifies the return data ('dashboard names and IDs'). It distinguishes this as a listing operation rather than a retrieval of specific dashboards, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar listing tools like 'list_wikis' or 'list_repositories'.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools (e.g., 'get_teams', 'list_wikis'), the description lacks context about prerequisites, team selection logic, or comparisons to other listing operations.

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

Deploy Server