Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ado-mcp

ado-mcp

by og-mcp
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

ado_list_projects

Read-only

List projects in an Azure DevOps organization with filtering by state and paging support.

Instructions

List all projects in the Azure DevOps organization, with optional state filter and paging.

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_projects"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
topNoMax projects to return
skipNoNumber of projects to skip (paging)
stateFilterNoProject state filter: 0=deleting,1=new,2=wellFormed,3=createPending,4=all,5=unchanged,6=deleted

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds paging and state filter options, which are useful but do not disclose additional behavioral traits like default behavior or potential constraints.

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?

The description is a single sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the main action. No redundant information or fluff.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple list tool with complete schema and annotations, the description covers the key aspects (state filter and paging). It does not explain the return format, but the tool name implies a list of projects. Overall adequate.

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 adequate descriptions for each parameter. The description only summarizes the existence of state filter and paging, adding no new semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 all projects in the organization, specifying optional filtering by project state and paging. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'ado_get_project' which retrieves a single project.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies the tool is for listing projects with optional filtering, which is a common use case. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like 'ado_get_project' or provide when-not-to-use guidance. The context is clear enough for an agent.

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