get_projectFetch complete details for an Azure DevOps project, including id, description, visibility, state, and capabilities.
Fetch the full details (id, description, visibility, state, capabilities) of a single project.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project | Yes | Project name or id (must be within AZDO_PROJECT_ALLOWLIST when that is set) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.3Input schema / properties / project / descriptionPrevious value: -"Project name or id"New value: +"Project name or id (must be within AZDO_PROJECT_ALLOWLIST when that is set)"v0.2.2Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falsev0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the list of returned fields, which is useful behavioral context about the output, but does not describe error conditions or side effects. This is adequate given the annotations.
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 states the action and the exact fields returned. Every word adds value, and there is no extraneous information.
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 read operation with one well-documented parameter and annotations covering safety, the description is nearly complete. It lists the output fields, and the schema covers the parameter constraint. It does not mention not-found behavior, but that is a minor gap for such a tool.
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?
The input schema has 100% coverage, fully describing the 'project' parameter including the allowlist constraint. The description adds no additional parameter-level information, so the baseline of 3 applies—the schema carries the semantic load.
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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and a clear resource ('full details of a single project'), explicitly listing the fields returned (id, description, visibility, state, capabilities). This distinguishes it from list_projects and other get_* siblings without needing to inspect schemas.
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 clearly implies usage for retrieving details of a specific project by name or id, which differentiates it from list_projects. However, it does not explicitly name the alternative or state when not to use it, leaving some inference to the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.