Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ado-mcp

ado-mcp

by og-mcp
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

ado_list_commits

Read-only

List commits in an Azure DevOps repository, optionally filtered by branch.

Instructions

List commits in a repository, optionally filtered by branch.

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_commits"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
topNo
skipNo
branchNoBranch to list commits from
repoIdYesRepository name or ID
projectNoProject name or ID (defaults to ADO_DEFAULT_PROJECT)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, so it is clearly read-only. The description adds no behavioral context beyond stating the action (list) and optional filtering. It does not mention pagination, sorting, 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

Single, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. Every word serves a 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?

No output schema and no description of return format. Missing details on pagination (top/skip), default project, and commit data included. Incomplete for practical invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 60% (branch and repoId have descriptions; top, skip, project lack descriptions). The description only adds 'optionally filtered by branch', failing to compensate for the undocumented parameters (top, skip, project).

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?

Clearly states 'List commits in a repository' with optional branch filtering. Distinguishes from sibling tools like ado_get_commit (single commit) and ado_list_pr_commits (PR-specific). However, it does not specify what commit properties are returned.

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 vs alternatives. Sibling tools like ado_get_commit and ado_list_pr_commits have overlapping functionality, but no exclusions or recommendations are provided.

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