Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ado-mcp-server

ado-mcp-server

by ms31376
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

list_iterations

Read-only

Retrieve team iterations (sprints) with start and finish dates, optionally filtered by past, current, or future timeframe for a project or team.

Instructions

Team iterations (sprints) with start/finish dates. timeframe: optional filter "past", "current" or "future".

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_iterations"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
teamNo
projectNo
timeframeNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds nothing about default scope (all teams? all projects?), whether results are paginated, or how timeframes are computed relative to today, leaving an agent guessing about the call's actual behavior.

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?

Very short and front-loaded: the resource and return shape come first, the filter second. The 'timeframe:' label style is slightly terse but wastes no words.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but with three undocumented parameters and no stated default scoping behavior, the definition leaves too much unspecified for an agent to call it confidently with or without team/project.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains timeframe loosely (past/current/future) but never states whether those are enforced values or free text, and it says nothing about the team or project parameters at all.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific resource — team iterations (sprints) — and clarifies that records carry start/finish dates. The verb 'list' is only implied by the tool name, but no sibling tool covers iterations, so the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus other tools, no mention of whether team or project are needed to get meaningful results, and no statement of what happens when they are omitted. Only the timeframe filter's intent is touched on.

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