Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ado-mcp

ado-mcp

by og-mcp
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

ado_list_test_plans

Read-only

Retrieve test plans from an Azure DevOps project by specifying the project name or ID. Returns a list of all test plans.

Instructions

List test plans 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_test_plans"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
projectNoProject name or ID (defaults to ADO_DEFAULT_PROJECT)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The annotation already provides readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds no additional behavioral context. It does not contradict annotations, but neither does it elaborate on what the listing entails (e.g., pagination, permissions).

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?

Extremely concise: one sentence, no redundancy. Every word is necessary. Well front-loaded for quick understanding.

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?

For a simple list tool with one optional parameter, the description is adequate but lacks details on return format, pagination, or expected output. Given no output schema, more context (e.g., 'returns all test plans') would improve completeness.

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?

Parameter 'project' is fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds no extra meaning beyond 'in a project', which is already implied. Baseline score 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 clearly states the action (list) and resource (test plans) within a scope (in a project). It differentiates from sibling 'ado_get_test_plan' which retrieves a single plan, but does not explicitly mention 'all' test plans or any filtering.

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 versus alternatives like 'ado_get_test_plan' or 'ado_create_test_plan'. No context for when it is appropriate or inappropriate to use.

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