arcade-azure-devops-mcp

AzureDevops_SearchCode

AzureDevops_SearchCode

Search for specific text across Azure DevOps repositories. Filter by project or repository to pinpoint code matches.

Instructions

Search for code across repositories.

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": {
      "search_text": "<search_text>"
    },
    "name": "AzureDevops_SearchCode"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`top`	No	Maximum number of results to return
`project`	No	Filter by project name
`repository`	No	Filter by repository name
`search_text`	Yes	Text to search for in code

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 9, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

No annotations are provided, and the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It provides no detail on return format, pagination, authentication requirements, read-only nature, or search limitations. This is a critical gap for a code search tool.

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, ultra-concise sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded and every word earns its place, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.

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 absence of annotations and output schema, the description alone must provide sufficient context. It fails to explain what the search results look like, whether it searches all branches or just the default, or any constraints. For a simple search tool, it is incomplete and leaves the agent guessing about expected responses.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, with each parameter having a description in the input schema. The tool description adds no extra semantic value beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate. It does not clarify relationships or defaults, but the schema already covers the basic meaning.

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 action ('Search'), the target ('code'), and the scope ('across repositories'), which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like AzureDevops_SearchIdentities. This is a strong verb+resource+scope formulation.

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 implies usage when code search is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. There is no guidance on when not to use it, so it only reaches an 'implied usage' level.

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