ado-mcp

ado_list_items

Read-only

List files and folders at a specified path in an Azure DevOps repository, with options for recursion and branch selection.

Instructions

List files and folders at a path 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_items"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`branch`	No
`repoId`	Yes	Repository name or ID
`project`	No	Project name or ID (defaults to ADO_DEFAULT_PROJECT)
`recursive`	No	Recurse into subfolders (default false = one level)
`scopePath`	No	Directory path to list; omit for repo root

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 matches the readOnlyHint annotation by stating 'List', which is consistent with a read operation. However, it does not add any additional behavioral context such as what happens if the path doesn't exist, whether pagination is supported, or the format of the returned list. Since annotations already declare read-only, minimal extra value is provided.

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?

The description is a single, clear sentence. It is concise but could be improved by front-loading more key information (e.g., the return type or important parameters). However, there is no wasted text.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters and no output schema. The description does not explain what the output contains (e.g., file/folder names, metadata, or a list of strings). For a listing tool, knowing the return format is important, but the description is otherwise sufficient for basic understanding.

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?

With 80% schema description coverage, the schema explains most parameters. The description adds slight context by mentioning 'at a path', which relates to the 'scopePath' parameter, but does not elaborate further. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 that the tool lists files and folders at a path in a repository. This is distinct from sibling tools like 'ado_list_repos' (list repositories) or 'ado_get_file' (get file content), so it differentiates well.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'ado_get_file' for a single file, or 'ado_list_branches' for branches). No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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

Deploy Server