list_teamsRetrieve team IDs and names for an Azure DevOps project to use with team-scoped tools. Specify the project name or ID to get the list.
List the teams defined in a project, with their ids and names. Use a team id/name with the team-scoped tools.
| 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 / descriptionPrevious value: -"Project name or id"New 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 declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by specifying the output format (ids and names), which is beyond the annotations. It doesn't contradict any annotations and provides useful behavioral context about the returned data.
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 short sentences, front-loading the purpose and adding a practical usage note. No wasted words. It is efficiently structured and easy to parse.
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 well-documented parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is complete. It states the output content and how to use it, which is all an agent needs to invoke it 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?
The single parameter 'project' is fully documented in the schema with a clear description including the allowlist constraint. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description need not add parameter details. It doesn't, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema handles the semantics.
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 verb 'List', the resource 'teams', and the scope 'in a project'. It also specifies the output contains 'ids and names', distinguishing it from other list tools like list_projects or list_repositories. The purpose is unambiguous.
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 implicit guidance: use this tool to obtain team ids/names for use with 'team-scoped tools'. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context of sibling tools makes the usage clear. The instruction to use the output with other tools adds practical guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.