ado-mcp

ado_list_packages

Read-only

List packages from an Azure DevOps feed, with optional name filter and result limit.

Instructions

List packages in a feed.

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": {
      "feedId": "<feedId>"
    },
    "name": "ado_list_packages"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`top`	No
`query`	No	Filter by package name
`feedId`	Yes	Feed ID or name
`project`	No	Project (for project-scoped feeds; omit for org-scoped)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 30, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds no behavioral context. It does not mention that it is a safe read operation, nor does it disclose any potential side effects or limitations beyond what annotations provide. The description is neutral and non-contradictory.

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, concise sentence that avoids unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it is extremely minimal and lacks any structure or elaboration, which slightly reduces its helpfulness for an agent.

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 is simple with good schema coverage and annotations, but the description omits mention of optional parameters like 'top' for pagination and 'query' for filtering. Without this context, an agent might assume all packages are returned. The description is adequate but not fully complete.

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 75% (3 of 4 parameters have descriptions), meeting the high coverage threshold. The description does not add parameter meaning beyond the schema. While 'top' lacks a description, its schema constraints (max 1000, exclusive min 0) partially compensate. The baseline 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?

The description 'List packages in a feed' clearly states the action and resource. It is specific but does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'ado_get_package' or 'ado_list_package_versions'. The verb+resource combination is clear, yet lacks differentiation context.

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 such as 'ado_get_package' for a single package or 'ado_list_package_versions' for versions. There is no mention of prerequisites or context, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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

Deploy Server