list_pipelinesList pipelines in an Azure DevOps project to get their IDs and names, enabling you to run a specific pipeline with run_pipeline.
List the pipelines defined in a project, with their ids and names. Use a pipeline id with run_pipeline.
| 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 / descriptionAdded 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?
The annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint). The description adds value by disclosing that the tool returns ids and names, and by noting the relationship with run_pipeline. This enriches the behavioral context beyond what annotations provide.
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?
The description is two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the main action and includes a useful pointer to run_pipeline without unnecessary elaboration.
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 list tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is complete: it states the purpose, the output fields, and the follow-up usage. Minor details like pagination or filtering are not mentioned, but they are not critical for this straightforward operation.
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 coverage is 100% because the only parameter 'project' has a description. The description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline but does not elevate it.
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 clearly states the tool lists pipelines in a project, including the specific outputs (ids and names). It also distinguishes the tool by pointing to run_pipeline, making its purpose unambiguous and differentiating it from sibling tools that operate on other resource types.
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 provides clear context: list pipelines in a project. It also suggests the follow-up action of using the pipeline id with run_pipeline. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or contrast it with alternatives like list_builds, though the context is sufficient for most agents.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.