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

ado-mcp-server

by ms31376
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

list_test_plans

Read-only

List test plans for an Azure DevOps project and filter to active plans when needed to inspect testing scope.

Instructions

Test plans of a project.

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_test_plans"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
projectNo
active_onlyNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

C2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered, and the description adds nothing on top of that. It says nothing about scope of results (all projects vs. one), pagination, or the significant default of active_only=true that silently filters output.

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 very short, but that brevity comes from under-specification rather than efficiency: it is a sentence fragment with no verb and no actionable detail. Nothing is wasted because almost nothing is said.

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, which lowers the burden. Still, for a listing tool with two undocumented parameters and a non-obvious default filter, the description leaves the agent without enough to invoke it confidently.

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% for both parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. 'of a project' hints that the project parameter narrows scope, but nothing explains its format (name vs. ID) or the active_only flag that defaults to true and filters results.

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?

The description is a noun fragment, 'Test plans of a project.', that essentially restates the tool name without a verb or explicit statement that it lists/returns test plans. It weakly scopes results to a project, but an agent gets no confirmation of the operation or what distinguishes it from siblings like list_test_suites or search_test_cases.

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 use this tool versus list_test_suites, search_test_cases, or get_suite_test_results, and no mention of prerequisites or default behavior. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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