Retrieve details for a specific Azure DevOps project by organization and project ID or name, so you can inspect project information before managing work items or pipelines.
Get details of a specific project
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| projectId | No | The ID or name of the project (Default: no default project) | |
| organizationId | No | The ID or name of the organization (Default: example-org) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.54Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it says nothing about permissions, error behavior when a project is missing, whether 'details' includes members or repos, or whether the lookup is read-only. Only the weak implicature of the verb 'Get' signals a non-mutating operation.
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 filler or repetition. It is arguably too thin rather than too verbose, but in terms of structure and waste there is nothing to trim.
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 lookup tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should clarify what 'details' returns and how it differs from the near-duplicate sibling. Neither is addressed, leaving real ambiguity about scope and return content.
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%, with both projectId and organizationId documented including their defaults, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no meaning beyond that, which matches the baseline for fully covered schemas.
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?
The description names a specific verb (get) and resource (project) with a singular scope, so the basic operation is legible. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the sibling 'get_project_details', which sounds functionally identical, leaving an agent unable to choose between them from the text alone.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this versus 'list_projects' or 'get_project_details', nor any prerequisite or exclusion. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.