ado-mcp

ado_get_board_columns

Read-only

Retrieve columns configured on an Azure DevOps board to see workflow stages. Provide board name or ID, with optional team and project.

Instructions

Get the columns configured on a board.

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": {
      "board": "<board>"
    },
    "name": "ado_get_board_columns"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`team`	No	Team name (defaults to "<project> Team")
`board`	Yes	Board ID or name
`project`	No	Project name or ID (defaults to ADO_DEFAULT_PROJECT)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 30, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The description adds no behavioral details beyond the annotation readOnlyHint. It does not disclose required permissions, scope (e.g., does it require a specific project context?), or the format of the returned columns.

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 sentence that is perfectly concise and front-loaded. Every word is necessary and no wasted space.

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?

For a read tool with no output schema, the description does not describe the return structure (e.g., column names, order, IDs). It also does not explain the relationship between the three parameters, leaving some ambiguity about how board, team, and project interact.

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 coverage is 100% with parameter descriptions, so the description need not add meaning. However, it does not explain the role of parameters like 'team' or the distinction between 'board' as ID vs name, so it adds no extra value, meeting the baseline.

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 the action 'Get' and the resource 'columns configured on a board', which is specific and distinct from sibling tools like ado_list_boards or ado_get_backlog_work_items.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., ado_list_boards to find boards, or ado_get_backlog_work_items for work items). The description is a bare statement without context.

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

Deploy Server