ado-mcp

ado_list_branches

Read-only

List branches in a repository with optional filtering by ref pattern, such as 'heads/feature'.

Instructions

List branches (refs) in a repository.

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": {
      "repoId": "<repoId>"
    },
    "name": "ado_list_branches"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`filter`	No	Ref filter, e.g. "heads/feature". Defaults to "heads/".
`repoId`	Yes	Repository name or ID
`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

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, so the tool is safe. However, the description adds no extra behavioral context beyond the obvious listing operation. It does not mention pagination, filtering behavior, or rate limits.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Single sentence; no wasted words. Front-loaded and to the point. However, it is slightly too minimal to be a 5, as it could benefit from a brief note on output or default filter.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool and full schema coverage, the description is adequate but missing useful context like return format, pagination behavior, or the default filter value. For a list tool, mentioning that it returns an array would improve completeness.

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 descriptions for all three parameters. Description adds no new parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states verb ('List') and resource ('branches (refs) in a repository'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like ado_get_branch (single branch) and ado_create_branch (mutation), but does not explicitly mention that it lists all branches or differentiate from ado_list_tags.

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 vs alternatives. Description does not specify that it lists all branches or that it is the appropriate tool for enumerating branches, nor does it mention any prerequisites or context such as repository access.

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

Deploy Server