Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Azure DevOps MCP Server

Azure DevOps MCP Server

by jafarimohammad
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Get file content

get_file_content

Retrieve file contents from an Azure DevOps repository. Specify the file path and optionally the branch to get file content directly from the repository.

Instructions

Read the content of a file from a repository at an optional branch.

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": {
      "repositoryId": "<repositoryId>",
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "get_file_content"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
projectNoAzure DevOps project name or id. Defaults to AZDO_PROJECT if set.
repositoryIdYesRepository id or name.
pathYesFile path within the repo, e.g. /src/index.ts
branchNoBranch name (without refs/heads/). Defaults to the repo default branch.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Read' implying a non-destructive operation, but omits details like encoding, size limits, or error handling. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.

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 concise sentence with no redundant words. While efficient, it could be more informative without sacrificing brevity, e.g., by mentioning the return type.

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?

No output schema is provided, and the description does not explain what the tool returns (content type, format). It also lacks notes on authentication, default branch resolution, or error scenarios. For a file-reading tool, this is incomplete.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with individual parameter descriptions. The description adds 'optional branch' but this is already captured in the schema's branch parameter description. No additional semantic value is provided beyond the schema.

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 specifies the verb 'read' and the resource 'file content', and includes the key constraint 'at an optional branch'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'list_branches' or 'get_build_logs'.

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, such as when to consult other read tools or how to handle branch defaults. The description lacks usage context.

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