Skip to main content
Glama
stefanskiasan

Azure DevOps MCP Server for Cline

get_wikis

Retrieve all wiki pages from an Azure DevOps project to access documentation and collaborative content.

Instructions

List all wikis in the project

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • The primary handler function that executes the 'get_wikis' tool logic: initializes the Azure DevOps connection, retrieves all wikis via the Wiki API, and formats the result as JSON text content.
    export async function getWikis(args: Record<string, never>, config: AzureDevOpsConfig) {
      AzureDevOpsConnection.initialize(config);
      const connection = AzureDevOpsConnection.getInstance();
      const wikiApi = await connection.getWikiApi();
      
      const wikis = await wikiApi.getAllWikis(config.project);
    
      return {
        content: [
          {
            type: 'text',
            text: JSON.stringify(wikis, null, 2),
          },
        ],
      };
    }
  • Schema definition for the 'get_wikis' tool, including name, description, and input schema specifying no required parameters.
      name: 'get_wikis',
      description: 'List all wikis in the project',
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {},
      },
    },
  • Registration of the getWikis handler wrapper within the wikiTools.initialize function, linking to the actual implementation.
    getWikis: (args: Record<string, never>) => getWikis(args, config),
  • src/index.ts:139-141 (registration)
    Main server switch-case registration that routes 'get_wikis' tool calls to the wiki tools instance.
    case 'get_wikis':
      result = await tools.wiki.getWikis(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 a read operation ('List'), implying it's non-destructive, but doesn't mention any behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens if no wikis exist. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with a project system.

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 zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it highly efficient and easy to parse. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information without redundancy.

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 the complexity of interacting with a project's wikis, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on output format, error handling, or behavioral context, and with no annotations or output schema, the agent has minimal guidance. For a tool in a server with multiple wiki-related siblings, more context is needed to ensure correct usage.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool has 0 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it appropriately doesn't mention any. A baseline of 4 is applied since no parameters exist, and the description doesn't introduce confusion.

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 ('wikis in the project'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_wiki_page' or 'list_work_items', which might also retrieve wiki-related information, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 like 'get_wiki_page' or 'list_work_items'. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing an active project, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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