Skip to main content
Glama
stefanskiasan

Azure DevOps MCP Server for Cline

get_boards

Retrieve available boards from an Azure DevOps project to organize and track work items. Specify a team name to filter results.

Instructions

List available boards in the project

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
teamNoTeam name (optional)

Implementation Reference

  • Core handler function that executes the get_boards tool logic: initializes connection, fetches boards via Azure DevOps Work API, and formats response.
    export async function getBoards(args: GetBoardsArgs, config: AzureDevOpsConfig) {
      AzureDevOpsConnection.initialize(config);
      const connection = AzureDevOpsConnection.getInstance();
      const workApi = await connection.getWorkApi();
      
      const teamContext = {
        project: config.project,
        team: args.team || `${config.project} Team`,
      };
    
      const boards = await workApi.getBoards(teamContext);
    
      return {
        content: [
          {
            type: 'text',
            text: JSON.stringify(boards, null, 2),
          },
        ],
      };
    }
  • Type definition for input arguments to the get_boards handler.
    interface GetBoardsArgs {
      team?: string;
    }
  • MCP tool definition schema for get_boards, including name, description, and input schema.
    const definitions = [
      {
        name: 'get_boards',
        description: 'List available boards in the project',
        inputSchema: {
          type: 'object',
          properties: {
            team: {
              type: 'string',
              description: 'Team name (optional)',
            },
          },
        },
      },
    ];
  • Registers the getBoards handler within boardTools.initialize, binding config, and exports definitions.
    export const boardTools = {
      initialize: (config: AzureDevOpsConfig) => ({
        getBoards: (args: any) => getBoards(args, config),
        definitions,
      }),
      definitions,
  • src/index.ts:134-136 (registration)
    Main server request handler dispatches 'get_boards' tool calls to the bound handler.
    case 'get_boards':
      result = await tools.board.getBoards(request.params.arguments);
      break;
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it's a list operation, implying read-only behavior, but does not cover aspects like pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'available' means (e.g., filtered by permissions). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation support.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the core purpose efficiently. It is appropriately sized for a simple list tool, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., how results are returned), does not clarify the scope of 'available', and omits usage context relative to siblings. For a tool in this environment, more information 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.

Parameters3/5

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

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with one optional parameter 'team' documented. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema, as it does not explain parameter usage or constraints. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 ('available boards in the project'), making the tool's purpose understandable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_projects' or 'list_work_items' beyond the resource name, missing explicit sibling distinction.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as how it differs from 'list_work_items' or 'get_wikis'. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or context for usage, leaving the agent without direction.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/stefanskiasan/azure-devops-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server