ado-mcp-server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

list_team_members

Read-only

Retrieves the members of a specified Azure DevOps team, optionally scoped to a project, so you can identify team participants and their identities.

Instructions

Members of a team.

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": {
      "team": "<team>"
    },
    "name": "list_team_members"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`team`	Yes
`project`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Nov 9, 2026

TDQS

D1.6/5.0

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 by structured data rather than the description. The description adds nothing beyond that: it says nothing about permissions, scope of the returned membership, or the meaning of the optional project narrowing. No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

It is short, but the brevity comes from under-specification rather than tight writing. A four-word fragment is not front-loaded with any actionable information.

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

Completeness1/5

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 needn't be explained, but everything else is missing: no parameter meaning, no usage context, no behavior. For a tool with two undocumented parameters this is inadequate.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description never mentions either parameter. What "team" accepts (name, ID, GUID) and what "project" scopes are entirely undocumented, so for a 2-parameter tool the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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

Purpose2/5

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

"Members of a team" essentially restates the tool name list_team_members, adding only the noun phrase already implied. It gives no verb-level specificity (e.g., whether it returns member identities, roles, or counts) and does nothing to distinguish this from siblings like list_teams or whoami.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines1/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. An agent has no signal about whether this is the right call versus list_teams or any other membership-related sibling.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.