list_buildsRetrieve Azure Pipeline build records and filter by status, result, repository, definition, or branch to find specific builds.
List and filter Azure Pipeline build records for status, result, repository, definition, or branch.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| top | No | ||
| branch | No | ||
| project | No | ||
| repositoryId | No | ||
| resultFilter | No | ||
| statusFilter | No | ||
| definitionIds | No | ||
| continuationToken | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the operation is a read-only listing, but it does not mention pagination via continuationToken, that top has a default/existence, whether a project is always required, or what fields are returned. This leaves important behavioral behavior undisclosed.
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 sentence that front-loads the action and lists the key filter dimensions. No wasted words; it is easy to scan.
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 tool with eight parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is under-specified. It misses the pagination parameter, default behavior, required context (e.g., does project need to be supplied for all calls), and differentiation from list_pipeline_runs. An agent would likely need additional help to call 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?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It associates five of eight parameters (status, result, repository, definition, branch) but omits top, project, and continuationToken entirely, and does not clarify filter combination semantics. It adds some meaning but leaves gaps.
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 uses a clear verb ('List and filter') and names the target resource ('Azure Pipeline build records') plus the filter dimensions (status, result, repository, definition, branch). It clearly indicates a read/query operation and its object type; it doesn't explicitly contrast it with list_pipeline_runs but the resource is specified.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool over the adjacent list_pipeline_runs or list_pipelines. There are no conditions, exclusions, or pointers to alternatives. The description only restates a generic listing purpose, so an agent must infer selection from sibling names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.