list_branchesRetrieve all Git branches in an Azure DevOps repository, showing the commit each branch points to for quick reference and navigation.
List the branches (refs/heads) of a Git repository, with the commit each one points at.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| repo | Yes | Repository id or name (from list_repositories) | |
| 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 / descriptionAdded value: +"Project name or id (must be within AZDO_PROJECT_ALLOWLIST when that is set)"Input schema / properties / repo / descriptionPrevious value: -"Repository id or name"New value: +"Repository id or name (from list_repositories)"v0.2.2Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falsev0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behaviorebb. The description adds value beyond those by clarifying the scope ('refs/heads') and specifying the return content (the commit each branch points at). No contradiction with 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 sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and the extra detail about commit pointers is concise and relevant.
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-only list tool, the description covers the return value at a useful level, and annotations cover side effects and safety. A fully explicit output shape would be nice, but the description is otherwise complete enough for calling the tool correctly.
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 both parameters are already documented. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond identifying the repository as the source of branches; this is acceptable given the high schema coverage.
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 ('List'), a clear target resource ('branches (refs/heads)'), and even names the returned info ('commit each one points at'). This distinguishes list_branches from sibling list tools like list_repositories and list_pull_requests without opening their 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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites like first calling list_repositories to obtain project/repo IDs, and no exclusion notes. The intended use is only implied by the tool's name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.