list_repositoriesList all Git repositories in an Azure DevOps project, returning their IDs, names, and default branches.
List the Git repositories in a project, with their ids, names, and default branches.
| 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?
Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds useful value beyond those annotations by specifying the returned fields (ids, names, default branches), which matters here because no output schema is provided.
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. The verb and resource are front-loaded, and the return-field list is given compactly after the main action. Every part earns its place.
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 one-parameter, read-only listing tool with strong annotations and a fully documented schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. It states the project scope, required input, and what the result contains, and no output schema is needed.
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 already documents the single required parameter at 100% coverage, including the allowlist constraint. The description repeats the project scoping but does not add new parameter detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.
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'), a specific resource ('Git repositories'), and a scoping constraint ('in a project'), and tells the agent what fields will be returned (ids, names, default branches). This is clearly distinct from sibling tools like list_projects or list_branches.
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 gives clear context: use this tool when you need to enumerate Git repositories within a particular project. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but there is no ambiguity about the intended use case given the required project parameter and the sibling tool names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.