Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ado-mcp

ado-mcp

by og-mcp
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

ado_list_feeds

Read-only

List artifact feeds in Azure DevOps, supporting both org-scoped and project-scoped filters.

Instructions

List artifact feeds (org- or project-scoped).

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_feeds"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
projectNoProject (for project-scoped feeds; omit for org-scoped)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true. The description adds no extra behavioral context (e.g., pagination, ordering, permissions). It merely restates the scoping already covered in the parameter schema.

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, front-loaded with verb and resource, no unnecessary words. Extremely concise.

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 and presence of annotations, the description is adequate but does not explain the return format or behavior. A more complete description would mention that it returns a list of feeds.

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 already explaining the project parameter. The tool description adds minimal value beyond restating scoping, so baseline 3 applies.

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 tool lists artifact feeds and specifies the scoping (org- or project-scoped). This distinguishes it from sibling list tools like ado_list_groups or ado_list_projects.

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 (e.g., ado_get_feed). The description only states the basic action without exclusions or context.

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