list_commitsFetch commits from an Azure DevOps repository, scoping results by branch, tag, or commit and filtering by author or date range.
List repository commits, optionally scoped to a branch, tag, or commit.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| top | No | ||
| skip | No | ||
| author | No | ||
| toDate | No | ||
| project | No | Project name or ID. Omit to use AZURE_DEVOPS_DEFAULT_PROJECT. | |
| fromDate | No | ||
| revision | No | ||
| versionType | No | ||
| repositoryId | Yes | Repository name or ID. |
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', implying a read-only operation, but provides no detail about pagination (top/skip), default ordering, filtering behavior, or failure cases for invalid branch/tag/commit references.
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?
A single efficient sentence of 11 words. It front-loads the core action 'List repository commits' and appends the key optional scoping differentiator with no wasted words.
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?
With 9 parameters, low schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, this tool needs more description to be safely invoked. The current text does not explain pagination behavior, date/author filtering, or the default project behavior, leaving significant gaps for an agent.
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 22%, so the description must compensate heavily but does not. It adds meaning for versionType/revision via 'branch, tag, or commit', but leaves top, skip, author, fromDate, toDate, and project unexplained, giving the agent little semantic guidance for these 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List repository commits', and immediately adds the distinguishing scope option 'to a branch, tag, or commit', which maps to the versionType parameter. This clearly separates it from sibling tools like list_branches and get_pull_request_commits without needing to inspect their schemas.
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 phrase 'optionally scoped to a branch, tag, or commit' implies when the tool is useful, but there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which sibling to choose instead. It does not mention alternatives like get_pull_request_commits for PR-scoped commit history, leaving the routing decision mostly to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.