Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Azure DevOps MCP Server

Azure DevOps MCP Server

by jafarimohammad
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

List branches

list_branches

Retrieve all branches (refs/heads) for a specified repository in Azure DevOps, enabling branch management and navigation.

Instructions

List branches (refs/heads) of a repository.

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>"
    },
    "name": "list_branches"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
projectNoAzure DevOps project name or id. Defaults to AZDO_PROJECT if set.
repositoryIdYesRepository id or name.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, and the description is minimal. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as pagination, sorting, whether only active branches are listed, or permission requirements. For a read tool, more detail is needed.

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 wasted words. However, it is very brief and could include additional useful information without becoming verbose.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The description is adequate for a simple listing tool with two parameters and no output schema. However, it lacks details about the return format or behavior, which would be helpful for an AI agent.

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%, as both parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no additional semantic information beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the verb 'list' and the resource 'branches', specifying 'refs/heads' to distinguish from other ref types. It is unambiguous and differentiates from sibling tools like list_repositories.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Among sibling tools, there are multiple list tools, but the description provides no context for selection, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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