Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ado-mcp

ado-mcp

by og-mcp
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

ado_code_search

Read-only

Search across code in your Azure DevOps organization or project using full-text queries. Control pagination with top and skip parameters.

Instructions

Full-text search across code in the organization (or a project). Requires the Code Search extension.

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": {
      "searchText": "<searchText>"
    },
    "name": "ado_code_search"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
topNoMax results (default 50)
skipNo
projectNoLimit to a project
searchTextYesSearch query text

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description aligns as a read operation. Beyond annotations, it adds the extension requirement and scope (org or project), providing useful behavioral context.

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?

Two sentences, no waste. Purpose and prerequisite are front-loaded. Very efficient.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With no output schema, description covers purpose, scope, and prerequisite. Could mention return format or pagination, but schema covers top/skip defaults. Adequate for a search tool.

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 description coverage is 75%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter insight beyond the schema (e.g., implies project parameter limits scope). No deep semantics added.

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 it performs full-text search across code, using specific verb 'search' and resource 'code'. It distinguishes itself from sibling search tools like ado_work_item_search and ado_wiki_search by targeting code.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description mentions a prerequisite (Code Search extension) and implies usage for code search vs other search tools, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives.

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