arcade-azure-devops-mcp

AzureDevops_ListTeams

AzureDevops_ListTeams

List all teams in an Azure DevOps project by providing the project name or ID. Use top and skip parameters to control pagination and retrieve a specific subset.

Instructions

List all teams 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_ListTeams"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`top`	No	Maximum number of teams to return
`skip`	No	Number of teams to skip for pagination
`project`	Yes	Project name or ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 9, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the action but does not disclose pagination behavior, ordering, permissions, or return format. The presence of 'top' and 'skip' parameters suggests potential deviation from 'all' but is not explained.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately concise for a simple list tool.

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?

The description is minimally adequate for a straightforward list operation with complete schema, but it lacks behavioral context and return-value details. No output schema exists, so the description could have clarified output expectations.

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 schema descriptions comprehensively cover all three parameters (project, top, skip), and the description adds no additional parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'teams', scoped by 'project'. This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like ListProjects or ListWikis.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It neither names alternative tools nor mentions explicit exclusions or prerequisites.

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