Skip to main content
Glama
nikydobrev

Azure DevOps Multi-Organization MCP Server

by nikydobrev

git_list_repositories

List all Git repositories within a specified Azure DevOps project and organization, including hidden repositories when configured.

Instructions

Lists all Git repositories in a project

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
organizationYesThe name of the Azure DevOps organization
projectYesProject ID or name
includeHiddenNoInclude hidden repositories

Implementation Reference

  • Executes the git_list_repositories tool: connects to Azure DevOps, fetches repositories for the project (optionally including hidden), maps to simplified format (id, name, url, defaultBranch, remoteUrl), and returns as JSON text in MCP format.
      async ({ organization, project, includeHidden }) => {
        const connection = await connectionManager.getConnection(organization);
        const gitApi = await connection.getGitApi();
        const repos = await gitApi.getRepositories(project, includeHidden);
        
        const simplified = repos.map(r => ({
          id: r.id,
          name: r.name,
          url: r.url,
          defaultBranch: r.defaultBranch,
          remoteUrl: r.remoteUrl
        }));
    
        return {
          content: [{ type: "text", text: JSON.stringify(simplified, null, 2) }],
        };
      }
    );
  • Input schema for git_list_repositories tool using Zod: organization (string), project (string), includeHidden (optional boolean).
    {
      organization: z.string().describe("The name of the Azure DevOps organization"),
      project: z.string().describe("Project ID or name"),
      includeHidden: z.boolean().optional().describe("Include hidden repositories"),
    },
  • Registers the git_list_repositories tool on the McpServer within the registerRepositoryTools function, specifying name, description, input schema, and handler implementation.
    server.tool(
      "git_list_repositories",
      "Lists all Git repositories in a project",
      {
        organization: z.string().describe("The name of the Azure DevOps organization"),
        project: z.string().describe("Project ID or name"),
        includeHidden: z.boolean().optional().describe("Include hidden repositories"),
      },
      async ({ organization, project, includeHidden }) => {
        const connection = await connectionManager.getConnection(organization);
        const gitApi = await connection.getGitApi();
        const repos = await gitApi.getRepositories(project, includeHidden);
        
        const simplified = repos.map(r => ({
          id: r.id,
          name: r.name,
          url: r.url,
          defaultBranch: r.defaultBranch,
          remoteUrl: r.remoteUrl
        }));
    
        return {
          content: [{ type: "text", text: JSON.stringify(simplified, null, 2) }],
        };
      }
    );
  • Top-level registration call in index.ts that invokes registerRepositoryTools, thereby registering git_list_repositories among other repository tools.
    registerRepositoryTools(server, connectionManager);
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Lists' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like whether this requires authentication, what format the output takes, whether results are paginated, or any rate limits. For a tool with 3 parameters and no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple listing operation and front-loads the core functionality without unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place in conveying the essential purpose.

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?

Given the tool has 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address what the tool returns, how results are structured, or important behavioral constraints. For a tool that interacts with Azure DevOps (implied by parameter names), more context about authentication, error conditions, or typical use patterns would be helpful.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with all parameters clearly documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema descriptions. According to the scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.

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 clearly states the action ('Lists') and resource ('all Git repositories in a project'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like git_create_pull_request or git_get_item by focusing on repository listing rather than creation or retrieval of specific items. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from list_organizations or list_projects, which are conceptually similar listing operations.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to use git_list_repositories versus other listing tools like list_projects, or when to use it versus git_get_item for retrieving specific repository details. There's no context about prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/nikydobrev/mcp-server-azure-devops-multi'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server