arcade-azure-devops-mcp

AzureDevops_ListBuilds

AzureDevops_ListBuilds

Retrieve builds from an Azure DevOps project, applying optional filters for status, result, and maximum number to get exactly the build list you need.

Instructions

List builds in a project.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "project": "<project>"
    },
    "name": "AzureDevops_ListBuilds"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`top`	No	Maximum number of builds to return
`result`	No	Filter by result: canceled, failed, succeeded
`status`	No	Filter by status: all, completed, inProgress, notStarted
`project`	Yes	Project name or ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 9, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

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 disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'list builds' and does not mention filtering behavior, pagination, default limits, or any other operational aspects. This is minimal transparency for a tool that accepts multiple filters.

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, direct sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, making it appropriately concise and well-structured.

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?

While the schema covers all parameters, the description lacks any context about return values, defaults, or behavior with filters. Since there is no output schema, the description could have provided more completeness, but the tool is relatively simple and the purpose is clear.

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 already describes all parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond the schema, but also does not conflict with it.

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 'List builds in a project' uses a specific verb ('list') and a clear resource ('builds') scoped to a project. It distinguishes from siblings like AzureDevops_ListBuildDefinitions and AzureDevops_QueueBuild, which target different resources.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description only states what the tool does, with no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives or exclusions. The usage is implied by the name and description, but no alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions are provided.

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