Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Azure DevOps MCP Server with PAT Authentication

Azure DevOps MCP Server with PAT Authentication

by ennuiii
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

wit_list_backlogs

Retrieve backlogs for specific projects and teams in Azure DevOps using PAT authentication. Streamline project tracking and task management for enhanced productivity.

Instructions

Revieve a list of backlogs for a given project and team.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "project": "<project>",
      "team": "<team>"
    },
    "name": "wit_list_backlogs"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
projectYesThe name or ID of the Azure DevOps project.
teamYesThe name or ID of the Azure DevOps team.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action without mentioning permissions required, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or what the output format might be (e.g., list structure, fields included). For a tool that likely interacts with Azure DevOps, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, straightforward sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose. However, the typo ('Revieve' instead of 'Retrieve') slightly detracts from professionalism, and it could be more front-loaded with key details, but overall it's appropriately sized without unnecessary fluff.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity of Azure DevOps tools, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'backlogs' entails (e.g., product vs. sprint backlogs), potential dependencies, or return values. With siblings offering related functionality, more context is needed to ensure the agent can use this tool effectively without confusion.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both parameters ('project' and 'team') as names or IDs in Azure DevOps. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states the action ('Revieve' likely means 'Retrieve') and resource ('list of backlogs'), but it's vague about what 'backlogs' specifically refers to in Azure DevOps context. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'wit_list_backlog_work_items' or 'work_list_team_iterations', which might retrieve related but different data. The typo in 'Revieve' slightly undermines clarity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'wit_list_backlog_work_items' (which lists work items in backlogs) and 'work_list_team_iterations' (which lists iterations for teams), the description lacks any context on how this tool differs or when it's appropriate, leaving the agent to guess based on the name alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools

Related Tools