Lists pipelines in an Azure DevOps project to help you find and review available pipelines, with options to limit results and order by fields such as created date.
List pipelines in a project
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| top | No | Maximum number of pipelines to return | |
| orderBy | No | Order by field and direction (e.g., "createdDate desc") | |
| projectId | No | The ID or name of the project (Default: no default project) |
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 behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about pagination, default result size when `top` is omitted, or what happens when `projectId` is absent. It also doesn't state whether the result includes disabled pipelines or how the list is ordered by default.
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, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It is efficient, though the terseness borders on under-specification rather than optimal density.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and no usage framing, the description leaves the agent guessing about defaults and result behavior. For a collection-listing tool in a large sibling set of pipeline operations, this is thin.
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 all three parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond that, so 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 and resource ("List pipelines") with a scoping qualifier ("in a project"). An agent can tell it retrieves a collection rather than a single pipeline (get_pipeline) or runs (list_pipeline_runs), though the description never names those siblings explicitly.
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, no mention of when to prefer list_pipeline_runs or get_pipeline instead. The agent must infer selection from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.