list_processesList process templates in an Azure DevOps organization, returning their IDs for use when creating a project.
List the organization's process templates (Agile, Scrum, CMMI, or inherited) with their ids. Pass one of these ids as the process when creating a project.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does 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 specific types and the downstream use in project creation, but does not disclose any additional behavior such as pagination or response format, which is minor for a simple list operation.
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?
Two sentences with no filler: the first states the action and result, the second explains how to use the output. Information is front-loaded and every word adds value.
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 zero-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description is fully sufficient. It tells the agent what is returned (templates with ids) and how to use them, covering everything needed to invoke and consume the result.
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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). The description correctly omits parameter details since none exist. With no parameters, the baseline of 4 applies, and no additional parameter explanation is needed.
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' and resource 'process templates', specifies the types (Agile, Scrum, CMMI, or inherited) and states that ids are returned. This clearly differentiates it from sibling list tools like list_projects or list_teams.
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?
It explains the purpose of the returned ids ('Pass one of these ids as the process when creating a project'), giving clear context on when to use this tool. There are no direct alternatives, so no exclusion is needed, but the usage scenario is clearly implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.