list_branchesRetrieve branches from an Azure Repos repository. Filter by name prefix or limit results to identify relevant branches for code review and pull request workflows.
List branches in an Azure Repos repository.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| top | No | ||
| filter | No | Optional branch-name prefix. | |
| project | No | ||
| repositoryId | Yes | Repository name or ID. | |
| continuationToken | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does 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 says 'List branches' with no mention of pagination, filtering, permission requirements, or the structure of the response. It provides no behavioral traits beyond the bare action, leaving the agent without critical context.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise in structure, though it lacks the substance needed for other dimensions. The brevity is positive, but it sacrifices necessary detail.
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?
Given the tool has five parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely under-specified. It doesn't explain return values, pagination via 'continuationToken', or any edge cases. An agent would not know what to expect from the call or how to handle the parameters 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?
Schema description coverage is only 40% (only 'filter' and 'repositoryId' have descriptions in the schema). The tool description itself adds no parameter information at all, so it does not compensate for the low coverage. The agent must rely on the sparse schema, which is insufficient for five parameters.
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 action ('List'), the resource ('branches'), and the context ('in an Azure Repos repository'), which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from list_stale_branches implicitly by not mentioning staleness, but it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like list_repositories. Overall, it's clear enough for a simple read operation.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. With siblings like list_stale_branches, compare_branches, and list_repositories, an agent has no information to decide when to select this tool over others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.