Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ado-workflows-mcp

ado-workflows-mcp

by grimlor
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

repository_discovery

Scans a working directory for git repositories and identifies the associated Azure DevOps repository from remote metadata.

Instructions

Discover Azure DevOps repositories from local git remotes.

Scans the working directory (or cwd) for git repos, extracts ADO remote metadata, and selects the best match.

Args: working_directory: Path to scan. Defaults to the current working directory when omitted.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "repository_discovery"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
working_directoryNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.12.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It reveals that it scans directories, extracts ADO remote metadata, and selects the best match, but does not explain how 'best match' is determined, whether network access is needed, error handling, or output details.

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 concise with three sentences plus an args section. It front-loads the purpose but could be slightly tighter without losing clarity.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given a simple tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description adequately covers the core functionality. However, it omits details on error handling and the exact matching logic, leaving minor gaps.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by explaining the 'working_directory' parameter as a path defaulting to the current working directory. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's null default.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states it discovers Azure DevOps repositories from local git remotes by scanning the working directory and selecting the best match. This distinguishes it from the sibling 'discover_all_repositories', which likely fetches all repositories remotely.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies local scanning usage but does not explicitly specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'discover_all_repositories' or 'clear_repository_context'. No prerequisites or contexts are mentioned.

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