Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ado-mcp

ado-mcp

by og-mcp
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

ado_list_backlogs

Read-only

Retrieve backlog levels (Epics, Features, Stories) for a specified team in Azure DevOps.

Instructions

List backlog levels (Epics, Features, Stories) for a team.

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": "ado_list_backlogs"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
teamNoTeam name (defaults to "<project> Team")
projectNoProject name or ID (defaults to ADO_DEFAULT_PROJECT)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is known. Description adds no additional behavioral context beyond listing examples of backlog levels. No mention of permissions, return format, or side effects.

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?

Single sentence, 9 words, front-loaded with verb and object. No wasted words; every part earns its place.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Adequate for a simple read-only list tool with two optional parameters. However, with no output schema, it could mention what the returned list contains (e.g., names, IDs). Sibling tools are many but description suffices.

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%, so parameters are fully documented. Description adds no extra meaning beyond the team/project context already implied by parameters.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'List', the resource 'backlog levels', and provides concrete examples (Epics, Features, Stories). It distinguishes from sibling tools like ado_get_backlog_work_items which retrieves items within a backlog.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions, prerequisites, or context about when not to use it. Implicit usage only.

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