MCP Server for Azure DevOps

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it's a search operation, implying it's read-only, but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior (beyond the $top parameter), or what the search encompasses (e.g., file content, metadata). For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately clear. Every word earns its place by conveying essential purpose without redundancy.

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

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

Given the tool's complexity (search across repositories with 4 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the search returns (e.g., code snippets, file paths), how results are structured, or any behavioral constraints. For a search tool in this context, more detail is needed to guide effective use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 4 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying the search scope ('across repositories'), which is partially covered by the 'repo' parameter's optional nature. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, with no extra value from the description.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Search code across repositories' clearly states the verb ('search') and resource ('code across repositories'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like search_wiki_pages (which searches wiki content) and get_repo_file (which retrieves specific files). However, it doesn't specify the scope beyond 'repositories' or mention the platform context (e.g., Azure DevOps).

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

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. It doesn't mention when to prefer this over get_repo_file for file retrieval or search_wiki_pages for content searches, nor does it specify prerequisites like needing repository access. Usage is implied only by the tool name and description.

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