list_buildsList recent Azure DevOps pipeline runs in a project, newest first, to view their status and result.
List recent builds / pipeline runs in a project, most recent first, with their status and result.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| top | No | Maximum runs to return (1–200, default 20) | |
| 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 / top / descriptionPrevious value: -"Default 20"New value: +"Maximum runs to return (1–200, default 20)"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, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds ordering ('most recent first') and result fields ('status and result'), which is useful but does not disclose pagination behavior, default limits, or what happens when no builds exist. With annotations covering the core behavioral traits, a 3 is appropriate.
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 that is front-loaded with the action and resource, and includes the most important behavioral details (ordering, status, result). No wasted words.
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 with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the description is mostly adequate. However, it does not mention pagination, the default 'top' value, or how to interpret the result list, and there is no output schema to fill that gap. An agent could call it correctly, but may not know the response shape or limits.
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 the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, and the 'top' parameter's default and range are already in the schema. Baseline 3 is correct.
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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('recent builds / pipeline runs in a project'), and adds ordering ('most recent first') and included fields ('status and result'). It is clear, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_build or list_pipelines.
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 implies a read-only listing use case and the schema notes the project parameter, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_build or list_pipelines. The context is clear enough for a simple list operation, but no exclusions or alternative routing are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.