Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ado-mcp

ado-mcp

by og-mcp
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

ado_list_queries

Read-only

Retrieve saved or shared queries from an Azure DevOps project. Specify folder depth to expand results.

Instructions

List saved/shared queries in a project.

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_queries"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
depthNoFolder depth to expand (default 1)
projectNoProject name or ID (defaults to ADO_DEFAULT_PROJECT)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The description is consistent with annotations (readOnlyHint=true). However, it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits beyond the basic action, such as pagination, sorting, or whether both personal and shared queries are included.

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, directly to the point, no redundancies. Front-loaded with essential information.

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 description covers the tool's purpose but lacks details about the output format. Since no output schema is provided, the description could have improved completeness by hinting at the response structure.

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 descriptions for both parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, fulfilling the baseline expectation.

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 action (list), resource (saved/shared queries), and scope (in a project). It distinguishes from siblings like ado_get_query (single query) and ado_query_work_items (run query).

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 like ado_get_query or ado_query_work_items. No mention of prerequisites or context where listing is appropriate.

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