MCP Azure DevOps Server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation3/5
The tool set shows clear grouping into wikis, work items, and general operations, but there is significant overlap within the wiki category (e.g., create_wiki_page, create_or_update_wiki_page_smart, update_wiki_page, update_wiki_page_safe) that could cause confusion about which tool to use for specific scenarios. The work item tools are better distinguished, with clear purposes for creation, retrieval, updating, and deletion.
Naming Consistency4/5
Most tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., create_wiki, delete_work_item, get_projects), which aids predictability. However, there are minor deviations like create_or_update_wiki_page_smart (longer name with 'smart' suffix) and server_health_check (uses underscore but deviates from the typical action-object pattern), slightly reducing consistency.
Tool Count2/5
With 37 tools, the count is excessive for an Azure DevOps server, leading to potential overwhelm and redundancy. While Azure DevOps is a broad platform, the tool set includes many specialized or overlapping tools (e.g., multiple wiki update methods) that could have been consolidated, making it feel heavy and less scoped.
Completeness4/5
The tool set provides comprehensive coverage for wikis and work items, including CRUD operations, search, and advanced features like state transitions and batch operations. Minor gaps exist, such as lack of tools for repository management beyond listing and file content retrieval, but core workflows for the covered domains are well-supported.
Average 3.1/5 across 37 of 37 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- No commit activity data available
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
This repository includes a glama.json configuration file.
This server has been verified by its author.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

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 the tool 'creates or updates' intelligently, which implies mutation but doesn't specify what 'intelligently' entails (e.g., automatic conflict resolution, versioning, or permissions). No information is provided about side effects, error handling, or response format.
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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. It's front-loaded with the core action and includes the key qualifier 'intelligently' without unnecessary elaboration.
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?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'intelligently' means operationally, lacks details on behavioral traits like error conditions or side effects, and provides no guidance on usage versus siblings, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool fully.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 4 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score of 3 for adequate coverage without extra value.
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 verb ('creates or updates') and resource ('wiki page'), and specifies the intelligent behavior. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'create_wiki_page' or 'update_wiki_page', which have similar purposes but lack the 'intelligently' qualifier.
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 'create_wiki_page' or 'update_wiki_page'. It mentions 'intelligently' but doesn't explain what this means in practice or when it's preferable over simpler create/update operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'creates' which implies a write operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether this is idempotent, what happens on duplicate names, or error conditions. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple creation tool, though it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness. Every word earns its place.
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 for a creation tool. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., wiki ID, success status) or address behavioral aspects like error handling. With 2 parameters and 100% schema coverage, the input is covered, but overall context for safe and effective use is lacking.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('project' and 'name') with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain parameter relationships, constraints, or examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 ('creates') and resource ('new wiki in a project'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_or_update_wiki_page_smart' or 'create_wiki_page', which creates wikis at different granularities. The description is specific but lacks 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. With siblings like 'create_wiki_page' (for individual pages) and 'create_or_update_wiki_page_smart' (for smart updates), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. Usage is implied by the name but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 this is a creation operation but doesn't mention permissions required, whether it overwrites existing pages, error handling, or response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point without unnecessary words. It could be slightly more informative, but it's well-structured and front-loaded with the core action.
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?
For a creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like permissions, idempotency, or error cases, nor does it explain what the tool returns. Given the complexity and lack of structured data, more context is needed.
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 description mentions 'specified content' which aligns with the 'content' parameter, but doesn't add meaning beyond what the schema already provides. With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3, as the schema adequately documents all parameters without needing extra explanation in the description.
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 ('creates') and resource ('new wiki page with specified content'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_or_update_wiki_page_smart' or 'create_wiki_pages_batch', which would require more specificity to earn a 5.
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 'create_or_update_wiki_page_smart' or 'update_wiki_page', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. This lack of context leaves the agent without clear usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the destructive action ('Deletes') but doesn't mention whether deletion is permanent, reversible, requires specific permissions, affects linked content, or has confirmation steps. For a destructive operation, this is a significant gap in safety and behavioral context.
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, focused sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately understandable without unnecessary elaboration.
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?
For a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after deletion, whether there's confirmation or error handling, or how this tool differs from other wiki modification tools. Given the complexity and risk of deletion, more context is needed.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description mentions 'path' but doesn't add any additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.
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 ('Deletes') and resource ('a wiki page by its path'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_work_item' or explain why this specific deletion tool exists versus other wiki modification tools.
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_wiki_page_safe' or 'move_wiki_page', nor are prerequisites or warnings mentioned. The description offers only basic functional information without contextual usage advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 the destructive action ('Deletes') but lacks critical details: whether deletion is permanent or reversible, required permissions, side effects (e.g., on related comments or states), or error conditions. This is inadequate for a destructive operation.
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 zero wasted words. It front-loads the core action and resource efficiently, making it easy 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?
For a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover behavioral risks, return values, or error handling, leaving critical gaps for safe and effective use by an AI agent.
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 description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'work_item_id' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond implying the ID is used for deletion, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating value.
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 ('Deletes') and resource ('a work item by its ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling deletion tools like 'delete_wiki_page' beyond specifying the resource type, which is a minor gap.
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing the work item ID), consequences of deletion, or when to choose this over other work item operations like 'update_work_item' or 'get_work_item' for verification.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 of behavioral disclosure. While 'Gets' implies a read operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns raw text or structured data, or handles errors like missing files. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
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, efficient sentence that states the core functionality without any fluff. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward tool and front-loads the essential information, making it easy 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 the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the returned content looks like (e.g., text, binary, metadata), error conditions, or prerequisites like repository access. For a tool that retrieves file content, this leaves critical context gaps for an agent.
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 description coverage is 100%, with all three parameters clearly documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond implying that 'path' refers to a file path, which is already covered. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage without adding extra value.
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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Gets') and resource ('content of a file in a repository'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_files' or 'get_wiki_page', which could cause confusion about when to use each.
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. With siblings like 'list_files' (which likely lists files without content) and 'get_wiki_page' (which might retrieve wiki content), the agent has no explicit direction on tool selection, leaving usage context entirely implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions retrieving 'detailed documentation including parameters and examples,' which hints at a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like error handling (e.g., if tool_name is invalid), response format, or any rate limits. This is inadequate for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Gets detailed documentation') and specifies the scope ('for a specific tool including parameters and examples'). There is no wasted text, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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 doesn't explain what the detailed documentation includes beyond 'parameters and examples' (e.g., usage guidelines, return values), nor does it cover error cases or behavioral aspects. For a tool with rich potential output, this leaves significant gaps.
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 'tool_name' clearly documented. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 verb ('Gets') and resource ('detailed documentation for a specific tool'), specifying what it retrieves. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_tools' by focusing on detailed documentation rather than listing. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other documentation-related tools (none exist in siblings), so it's not a perfect 5.
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing to know the tool name beforehand, or compare it to 'list_tools' for discovery. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated, leaving gaps for an AI agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. It doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, what authentication is required, what happens if the page doesn't exist, or what format the returned content will have. The description states what the tool does but not how it behaves.
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, efficient sentence that communicates the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loads the essential information.
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?
For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what gets returned (content, metadata, error conditions), authentication requirements, or how it differs from similar retrieval tools. The context signals indicate this is a 3-parameter tool with no output schema, requiring more descriptive guidance than provided.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (project, wiki_identifier, path) with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 ('Gets') and resource ('a wiki page by its path'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_wiki_page_by_title' or 'get_wiki_page_tree', which have similar retrieval purposes but different selection criteria.
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. With multiple sibling tools for retrieving wiki content (get_wiki_page_by_title, get_wiki_page_tree, list_wiki_pages, search_wiki_pages), there's no indication of when path-based retrieval is preferred over title-based or other methods.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 a read operation ('Gets'), implying it's non-destructive, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or return format. This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.
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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy 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 the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'wikis' entail (e.g., metadata, content), how results are returned, or error conditions, leaving significant gaps for a tool with no structured behavioral data.
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 description adds no parameter information beyond the input schema, which has 100% coverage. It doesn't clarify semantics like what constitutes a valid project name/ID or how wikis are defined. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 ('Gets') and resource ('all wikis in a project'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'list_all_wikis_in_organization' or 'list_wiki_pages', which reduces specificity.
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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'list_all_wikis_in_organization' for organization-wide wikis or 'list_wiki_pages' for pages within a wiki, leaving the agent without context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only mentions optional field expansion. It lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or response format, which are critical for a read operation with potential expansions.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes the key feature (field expansion) without any wasted words, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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?
For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like what data is returned, how expansions work, or error cases, leaving gaps in understanding for effective agent 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters. The description adds minimal value by noting 'optional field expansion' but doesn't explain the semantics of 'expand' beyond what the schema states, meeting the baseline for high coverage.
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 ('Gets') and resource ('a work item by its ID'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_work_item_fields' or 'get_work_item_comments', which are more specific variants, so it lacks 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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention when to choose 'get_work_item' over 'search_work_items' or 'get_work_item_fields', leaving usage context unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 mentions 'pagination support' which is useful, but doesn't describe authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, response format, or whether the operation is read-only or has side effects. For a tool with 7 parameters and no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
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, efficient sentence that states the core purpose and key feature (pagination) without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity and gets straight to the point with zero wasted text.
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?
For a tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the response looks like, how comments are structured, what authentication is required, or how to handle errors. The mention of pagination is helpful but doesn't compensate for the significant gaps in behavioral and output context.
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 description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema (which has 100% coverage). It mentions 'pagination support' which relates to the 'top' and 'continuation_token' parameters, but doesn't provide additional context about how pagination works or best practices. With complete schema documentation, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 verb ('Gets') and resource ('comments for a specific work item'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_work_item' or 'search_work_items' by focusing specifically on comments. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential comment-related tools that might exist in other contexts, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.
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. While it mentions 'pagination support,' it doesn't explain when pagination is needed or how to choose between this and other work item tools like 'get_work_item' or 'search_work_items.' There's no mention of prerequisites, performance considerations, or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 mentions 'metadata for smart field updates,' hinting at read-only behavior, but doesn't clarify permissions, rate limits, pagination, or response format. This is inadequate for a tool that likely returns structured data.
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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It front-loads the core purpose ('Get all work item fields') and adds value with the 'metadata for smart field updates' context, making it appropriately sized and structured.
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, no output schema, and a single parameter with full schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., read-only nature, error handling) and output expectations, which are crucial for an agent to use this tool effectively in a project context.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the single parameter 'project.' The description adds no additional parameter details beyond implying the project context, which aligns with the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the heavy lifting.
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 ('Get all work item fields') and resource ('available in a project'), with a specific purpose ('with metadata for smart field updates'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_work_item' or 'get_work_item_types' by focusing on fields rather than items or types, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
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 like 'get_work_item_types' or 'get_work_item_states', nor does it mention prerequisites such as needing project access. The context is implied (project-based), but explicit usage scenarios are missing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 mentions the tool retrieves data ('Get all work item types'), implying a read-only operation, but fails to detail aspects like permissions needed, rate limits, pagination, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to invoke it safely.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Get all work item types') and includes the scope ('available in a project'). It avoids redundancy, though the phrase 'to help with smart work item management' is somewhat vague and could be omitted without losing essential information.
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 tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values (e.g., format, structure), error cases, or behavioral traits like idempotency. While the purpose is clear, the absence of annotations and output schema means the description should compensate more to guide an agent fully.
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 the single parameter 'project' documented as 'The name or ID of the project.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints. According to the rules, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, which is appropriate here.
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 verb ('Get') and resource ('work item types'), specifying the scope as 'available in a project'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_work_item' or 'get_work_item_states' by focusing on types, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them. The purpose is specific and actionable.
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_work_item_fields' or 'get_work_item_states', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. It vaguely suggests it 'helps with smart work item management', but this is too generic to inform tool selection effectively.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists repositories but fails to describe key behaviors such as pagination, sorting, filtering, error handling, or authentication requirements, which are critical for a list operation.
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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for its simple function, earning full marks for conciseness.
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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not address behavioral aspects like return format, pagination, or error cases, which are essential for a list tool in a context with many sibling tools and no structured output guidance.
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 the 'project' parameter clearly documented. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as format examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating value.
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 ('Lists') and resource ('all repositories in a project'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it does not distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'list_files' or 'list_wiki_pages', which reduces it from a perfect 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. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or comparison to sibling tools such as 'get_projects' or 'list_files', leaving the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 of behavioral disclosure. While 'Lists' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify critical details like pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what 'all pages' entails (e.g., includes archived pages?). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core functionality ('Lists all pages in a wiki'). There is no wasted verbiage or redundant information, making it easy to parse and understand immediately.
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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the return value looks like (e.g., list format, fields included) or address behavioral aspects like error conditions or performance considerations. For a tool with no structured metadata, this minimal description leaves too many unknowns for reliable agent 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 clear documentation for both required parameters ('project' and 'wiki_identifier'). The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage without compensating value.
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 ('Lists') and resource ('all pages in a wiki'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from similar sibling tools like 'get_wiki_page_tree' or 'search_wiki_pages', which also retrieve wiki page information but with different scopes or filters.
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. With sibling tools like 'search_wiki_pages' (for filtered searches) and 'get_wiki_page_tree' (for hierarchical views), the agent is left to infer usage based on the name alone, which is insufficient for optimal tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral context. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, how results are returned (format, pagination), performance characteristics, or authentication requirements. 'Search' implies read-only, but this isn't explicitly stated.
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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a search tool and front-loads the core functionality without unnecessary elaboration.
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?
For a search tool with 3 required parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the search returns, how results are structured, whether there are limitations (e.g., partial matches, case sensitivity), or how it differs from other wiki/page retrieval tools in the sibling list.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'title or content' which relates to 'search_term', but doesn't provide additional context about parameter interactions, format expectations, or search behavior beyond what's in the schema.
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 verb ('search') and resource ('wiki pages'), specifying the search scope ('by title or content'). It distinguishes from generic list operations but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_work_items' or 'get_wiki_page_by_title'.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_wiki_pages', 'get_wiki_page_by_title', or 'search_work_items'. The description implies searching across titles and content but provides no context about prerequisites, limitations, or comparison to other search tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 of behavioral disclosure. It only states the search action without detailing what the search returns (e.g., list of items, fields included), pagination behavior, error handling, or authentication needs. For a search tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and uses clear terminology. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.
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 a search operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the search returns, how results are formatted, or any limitations (e.g., query complexity, result limits). For a tool with two required parameters and behavioral uncertainty, this leaves critical gaps for an AI agent.
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 description mentions 'using a WIQL query,' which aligns with the 'wiql_query' parameter but doesn't add meaning beyond the schema's 100% coverage. It doesn't explain WIQL syntax, provide examples, or clarify the 'project' parameter's role. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description adds minimal value over the structured data.
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 tool's purpose: 'Searches for work items using a WIQL (Work Item Query Language) query.' It specifies the verb ('searches'), resource ('work items'), and method ('using a WIQL query'), making it easy to understand. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_work_item' or 'search_wiki_pages', which would require a 5.
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. It doesn't mention when to prefer this over 'get_work_item' (for single items) or 'search_wiki_pages' (for wiki content), nor does it specify prerequisites like needing a project context or valid WIQL syntax. This leaves the agent with minimal context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 the tool updates content but fails to mention critical aspects like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, potential side effects (e.g., overwriting existing content), or error handling. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation 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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and directly states the tool's purpose, making it easy to parse and understand 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 the complexity of updating a wiki page (a mutation operation), the lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover behavioral traits, error cases, or return values, leaving the agent with incomplete information for safe and 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 schema description coverage is 100%, with all parameters well-documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying that 'content' is the new content for the page, which is already clear from the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 verb ('Updates') and resource ('existing wiki page'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_wiki_page_safe' or 'create_or_update_wiki_page_smart', which would require explicit comparison to achieve a score of 5.
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 'update_wiki_page_safe' or 'create_wiki_page'. It lacks context about prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage from tool names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral disclosure. It states this is an update operation (implying mutation) but doesn't cover permissions needed, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens to unspecified fields. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word earns its place: 'Updates' (action), 'a work item' (resource), 'by its ID' (key identifier), 'with field changes and relation management' (scope). There's no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.
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?
For a mutation tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like authentication requirements, side effects, error handling, or response format. While the schema covers parameters well, the overall context for safe and effective tool invocation remains poorly documented.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds marginal value by mentioning 'field changes' (mapping to 'updates') and 'relation management' (mapping to 'relations'), but doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or examples beyond what the schema already specifies. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 verb ('Updates') and resource ('a work item'), specifying it's done by ID with field changes and relation management. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_work_item' (creation vs update) and 'delete_work_item' (update vs deletion), though doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'update_wiki_page' which updates 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 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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing work item ID), when to choose this over 'create_work_item' or other update tools, or any constraints on usage context. The agent must 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read operation, the description doesn't address important behavioral aspects like whether this requires authentication, what format the results return, whether there's pagination, rate limits, or error conditions. The phrase 'based on activity' is vague about what activity metrics determine 'recently modified'.
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, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loads the essential information ('Get recently modified wiki pages').
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?
For a read-only tool with full parameter documentation in the schema, the description is minimally adequate but has significant gaps. Without annotations or output schema, the description should ideally provide more behavioral context about what 'recently modified' means, the return format, and how this differs from similar sibling tools. The current description is incomplete for optimal agent understanding.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents all three parameters (project, wiki_identifier, limit). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain relationships between parameters or provide usage examples. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 ('Get recently modified wiki pages') and resource ('wiki pages'), with the qualifier 'based on activity' providing useful context about the selection criteria. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'list_wiki_pages' or 'search_wiki_pages' which might also retrieve wiki pages.
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools that retrieve wiki pages (list_wiki_pages, search_wiki_pages, get_wiki_page, get_wiki_page_by_title), there's no indication of when this 'recently modified' retrieval is preferred over other listing or searching approaches.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'hierarchical structure' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, potential rate limits, authentication needs, output format (e.g., JSON tree), or error handling. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose, and zero waste. Every word earns its place by succinctly conveying the tool's function and benefit ('for better navigation').
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?
Given 2 parameters with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral context (e.g., read-only, format) and doesn't compensate for the absence of annotations or output schema, leaving gaps in understanding how to interpret results.
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 description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('project' and 'wiki_identifier') well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond implying they identify the wiki for navigation. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 verb ('Get') and resource ('hierarchical structure of wiki pages'), specifying the purpose is for navigation. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_wiki_page' (single page) or 'list_wiki_pages' (flat list), though not explicitly named. However, it lacks specificity on what 'hierarchical structure' entails (e.g., tree vs. nested format).
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_wiki_pages' or 'get_wiki_page'. The description implies usage for navigation, but doesn't specify contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions. This leaves the agent to infer based on tool names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves data ('Get'), implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify if it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what the output format is (e.g., list of strings, structured objects). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get all possible states for a specific work item type') and adds a helpful context phrase ('to help with accurate status updates'). There is no wasted verbiage, and it's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.
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?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete but has gaps. It clarifies the tool's purpose and parameters are well-covered by the schema, but lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., authentication, output format) and doesn't fully guide usage relative to siblings. For a simple read tool with good schema coverage, it's adequate but not comprehensive.
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 description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('project' and 'work_item_type') well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond this, mentioning 'specific work item type' which aligns with the schema but doesn't provide additional context like examples beyond what's in the schema (e.g., 'Bug', 'User Story', 'Task' are already in the schema). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 verb ('Get') and resource ('all possible states for a specific work item type'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_work_item_types' by focusing on states rather than types, but doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get_work_item_transitions' which might also involve states. The 'to help with accurate status updates' adds useful context but isn't essential for differentiation.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description mentions it helps with 'accurate status updates,' which implies a context for updating work items, but doesn't specify prerequisites (e.g., needing project context) or compare to siblings like 'get_work_item_transitions' that might offer similar state-related information. Usage is implied rather than clearly defined.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it 'lists files' but doesn't describe what information is returned (e.g., file names, sizes, types), whether there's pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.
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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for a straightforward listing 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?
For a read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic action and parameters but lacks details on return format, error handling, or behavioral constraints that would help an agent use it correctly in context with sibling tools.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (project, repository_id, path) with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or constraints, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 ('Lists') and resource ('files in a repository at a specified path'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_repositories' or 'list_wiki_pages', which would require mentioning it specifically lists files rather than other repository contents.
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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_file_content' for retrieving file details or 'list_repositories' for listing repositories instead of files, leaving the agent to infer usage context 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it's for creation but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether it's idempotent, error handling for partial failures, or rate limits. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with no annotation coverage.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the key action ('create multiple wiki pages') and purpose ('for bulk operations'). There is zero wasted wording, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks crucial details like what happens on success/failure, return values, or any behavioral context. The 100% schema coverage helps with parameters, but overall context for safe and effective use is inadequate.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the three parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying 'pages_data' is for bulk operations, which is already clear from the schema's array structure. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
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 verb ('create') and resource ('multiple wiki pages') with the specific context of 'bulk operations.' It distinguishes from single-page creation tools like 'create_wiki_page' by emphasizing batch capability, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
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 for bulk operations, which suggests when to use this over single-page tools, but it doesn't provide explicit guidance on prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use it. No alternative tools are named, leaving usage context somewhat vague.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool creates a new work item, which implies a write operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether creation is idempotent, error handling, or rate limits. The mention of 'work item linking' adds some context but is insufficient for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes key features (supported types and linking). There's no wasted verbiage, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating core action from features).
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?
Given the tool is a mutation operation (creation) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete but has gaps. It covers what the tool does and key features, but lacks details on behavioral aspects like permissions, side effects, or response format, which are important for an agent to use it correctly in context with sibling tools.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by listing supported work item types (e.g., 'Epic', 'User Story') and mentioning linking, but doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 verb ('Creates') and resource ('new work item in Azure DevOps'), and specifies the supported work item types (Epic, User Story, Task, Bug). It distinguishes from siblings like 'update_work_item' by focusing on creation, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other creation tools like 'create_wiki_page' beyond the domain context.
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 for creating work items in Azure DevOps, but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives like 'update_work_item' or 'create_wiki_page'. It mentions work item linking as a feature, which hints at use cases involving dependencies, but lacks clear when/when-not directives or prerequisite context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it 'Gets a list' which implies a read operation, but doesn't mention any behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, permissions required, or what 'all projects' entails (e.g., archived vs. active). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with organizational scope.
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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without any fluff. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately scannable and perfectly concise.
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?
For a simple read operation with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose adequately. However, without annotations or output details, it lacks information about return format, error conditions, or organizational scope nuances, making it minimally viable but incomplete for confident use.
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 with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description appropriately doesn't add parameter details, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose without redundancy. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for parameterless tools.
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 verb ('Gets') and resource ('list of all projects in the organization'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_repositories' or 'list_wiki_pages' that also list resources, so it doesn't reach the highest clarity level.
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, timing, or compare it to other listing tools in the sibling set, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 of behavioral disclosure. It describes a read operation ('Get'), but doesn't mention permissions, rate limits, error handling, or the format of returned transitions. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency about how it behaves and what to expect.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. There's no wasted language or redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly. It effectively communicates the essential information without unnecessary elaboration.
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 doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., a list of states, transition rules), error conditions, or dependencies. For a tool with three required parameters and no structured output information, more context is needed to ensure proper usage and 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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear parameter definitions. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, as it doesn't explain parameter relationships, provide examples, or clarify semantics like what 'valid' means in context. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't enhance understanding.
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 tool's purpose: 'Get valid state transitions for a work item type from a specific state.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('valid state transitions'), and scope ('for a work item type from a specific state'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_work_item_states' or 'get_work_item_types,' which reduces clarity about its unique role.
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 context with 'to ensure proper workflow,' suggesting it's used when planning or validating workflow steps. It doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_work_item_states' or 'update_work_item,' nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. This leaves usage somewhat open to interpretation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 it 'lists' tools, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires permissions, returns paginated results, or includes metadata beyond names. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and directly states the tool's function, making it easy to parse quickly.
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?
Given the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. However, without annotations or output schema, it lacks details on return format (e.g., list structure, tool metadata) and behavioral context, leaving gaps for the agent.
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 schema description coverage is 100% (though empty). The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate here. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as no compensation is needed.
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 verb ('Lists') and resource ('all available tools with their names'), making the purpose unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_tool_documentation', but the scope is specific enough for basic understanding.
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 doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or compare to siblings like 'get_tool_documentation', leaving the agent to infer usage based on the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'comprehensive health check' but doesn't disclose what that entails—whether it's read-only, what metrics it returns, if it impacts server performance, or if authentication is required. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence ('Performs a comprehensive health check of the server and Azure DevOps connection') directly contributes to understanding the tool's function, making it optimally concise.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (diagnostic with no parameters) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but doesn't explain what a 'health check' returns or any behavioral implications. For a tool with no structured output documentation, more detail on expected results would improve completeness.
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 with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate here. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as no additional semantic detail is needed beyond what the schema provides.
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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Performs') and target ('comprehensive health check of the server and Azure DevOps connection'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on system diagnostics rather than wiki, work item, or project operations. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential similar monitoring tools that might exist.
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., server availability), frequency recommendations, or what scenarios warrant a health check versus using specific diagnostic tools. With many sibling tools for data operations, context for choosing this diagnostic tool is missing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the tool is 'useful for navigation', hinting at a read-only, non-destructive operation, but doesn't explicitly state this. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it returns exact or partial matches, error handling for missing pages, authentication needs, rate limits, or return format. For a lookup tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.
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 extremely concise and front-loaded: two short phrases that directly state the tool's purpose and key differentiator. Every word earns its place, with no redundant information. The structure efficiently communicates the core idea without unnecessary elaboration, 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.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 required parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It clarifies the lookup method (by title vs. path) but lacks details on behavior, output, or differentiation from siblings like 'search_wiki_pages'. Without annotations or output schema, the description should do more to explain what the tool returns or how it handles edge cases, but it meets a basic threshold for a read operation.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (project, wiki_identifier, title) with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying 'title' can be partial ('Title or partial title' is in the schema). With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't compensate with extra details like format examples or constraints.
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 tool's purpose: 'Find a wiki page by title instead of exact path' with the specific verb 'find' and resource 'wiki page'. It distinguishes itself from sibling 'get_wiki_page' (which likely uses exact path) by emphasizing 'by title instead of exact path', though it doesn't explicitly name the sibling. The 'useful for navigation' adds context but doesn't fully differentiate from all title-based alternatives like 'search_wiki_pages'.
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 provides implied usage guidance: use this tool 'instead of exact path' and 'useful for navigation'. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_wiki_pages' (which might handle partial titles differently) or 'get_wiki_page' (the exact-path sibling). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving some ambiguity about the best choice among title-based lookup tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool is 'useful for autocomplete-like functionality', which hints at a read-only, non-destructive operation, but doesn't explicitly state safety, permissions, rate limits, or what the return format looks like. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and adds a brief usage note. Every word earns its place with zero waste, making it appropriately sized and easy to parse.
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 required parameters) and no annotations or output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and usage hint, but lacks details on behavioral traits, return values, or error handling, which are needed for full contextual understanding.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (project, wiki_identifier, partial_input) with clear descriptions. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying 'partial_input' is used for suggestions, but doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 tool's purpose: 'Get page suggestions based on partial input' with the specific verb 'Get' and resource 'page suggestions'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_wiki_page' or 'search_wiki_pages' by focusing on autocomplete functionality, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
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 context with 'useful for autocomplete-like functionality', suggesting when to use this tool. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to choose this over similar tools like 'search_wiki_pages' or 'get_recent_wiki_pages', nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool sets context for subsequent commands, implying stateful behavior, but doesn't disclose how long the context persists, whether it's session-specific, what happens on errors, or if it affects all sibling tools. For a state-changing tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Sets the project context') and explains the benefit ('to avoid repeating project parameter'). There is zero waste, and every word earns its place.
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?
Given one parameter with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately covers the basic purpose. However, as a state-setting tool with no annotations, it lacks details on persistence, scope, error handling, and how it integrates with other tools, making it minimally viable but with clear gaps.
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 description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'project' fully documented in the schema as 'The name or ID of the project to set as context.' The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as format examples or validation rules, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 ('Sets') and resource ('project context'), explaining it avoids repeating project parameters. It distinguishes from 'clear_project_context' by being the setter rather than clearer, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other project-related tools like 'get_projects'.
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 you want to avoid repeating project parameters in subsequent commands, providing some context. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for one-off commands) or mention alternatives like directly specifying project in each command, and no guidance on prerequisites or interactions with other tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 tool 'Clears the project context,' which implies a mutation or state change, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this requires specific permissions, if it's reversible, or what side effects occur. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and outcome with zero waste. Every word earns its place, making it highly 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?
Given the tool has 0 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimal but covers the basic purpose. However, for a mutation tool that changes context state, it lacks details on permissions, reversibility, or error conditions, making it incomplete for safe and effective use by an AI agent.
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 schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter information is needed. The description doesn't add param details beyond the schema, but with no parameters, a baseline of 4 is appropriate as it adequately covers the absence of inputs.
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 ('Clears') and the resource ('project context'), with the outcome specified ('reverting to organization-level scope'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'set_project_context' by indicating a reversal. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other context-related tools, which prevents a perfect score.
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 reverting from project-level to organization-level scope, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., after using 'set_project_context') or provide exclusions. The context is clear but lacks explicit guidance on when-not-to-use or named alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool performs a search operation ('Find wikis'), implying it's read-only, but doesn't clarify permissions, rate limits, pagination, or return format. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps, though it correctly avoids contradictions.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Find wikis by partial name match') and adds essential context ('when you don't know the exact wiki name'). Every word earns its place with zero redundancy, making it highly 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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (search operation with 2 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and usage context but lacks details on behavioral traits, return values, or error handling. This leaves gaps that could hinder an agent's effective use, though it meets a baseline for a simple search tool.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters ('project' and 'partial_name'). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying the 'partial_name' parameter is for fuzzy matching, but doesn't explain syntax, case sensitivity, or matching rules. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 tool's purpose: 'Find wikis by partial name match' specifies the verb (find) and resource (wikis). It distinguishes itself from exact-match siblings like 'get_wiki_page' or 'get_wiki_page_by_title' by emphasizing partial matching. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from broader search tools like 'search_wiki_pages' or 'list_all_wikis_in_organization', which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear usage context: 'when you don't know the exact wiki name' indicates when to use this tool versus exact-match alternatives. It implicitly suggests using other tools for exact matches. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or specify when not to use it (e.g., for broader searches or other wiki operations), which limits the score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 adds value by specifying 'atomically' (implying transactional safety) and 'perfect for reorganizing wiki structure' (suggesting a use case), but it does not cover permissions, error handling, rate limits, or what happens to links/redirects after the move. This is adequate but lacks depth for a mutation 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 two sentences with zero waste: the first states the core functionality, and the second provides usage context. It is front-loaded with the main action and efficiently conveys essential information without redundancy.
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?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete for a mutation tool. It covers the purpose and hints at behavior but lacks details on permissions, side effects, or return values. For a tool that modifies wiki structure, more behavioral context would be beneficial to fully inform the agent.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all four parameters. The description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as path format examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation effectively.
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 specific action ('move a wiki page') and resource ('wiki page'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'delete_wiki_page' or 'update_wiki_page' by focusing on relocation rather than deletion or content modification. It also specifies the scope ('from one location to another') and adds the qualifier 'atomically' to indicate transactional behavior.
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 for 'reorganizing wiki structure,' which provides some context, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_wiki_page' for content changes or 'delete_wiki_page' for removal. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving gaps in guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states what the tool does, not how it behaves. It lacks information about permissions needed, rate limits, pagination, return format, or whether it's a read-only operation. For a list operation with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral disclosure.
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, well-constructed sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and context. Every word earns its place, with no redundant information or unnecessary elaboration.
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?
For a zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the basic purpose and scope. However, without annotations or output schema, it should ideally provide more behavioral context about what information is returned and any limitations. The description is complete enough for basic understanding but lacks operational details.
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 with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the empty input. The description appropriately doesn't add parameter information, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose and usage context.
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 specific action ('List all wikis') and resource ('across all projects in the organization'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_wikis' or 'find_wiki_by_name' which likely have different scopes. It explicitly mentions 'cross-project discovery' which clarifies the organizational-level scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use this tool ('for cross-project discovery'), implying it's for broad organizational overviews rather than project-specific queries. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives like 'get_wikis' for project-level listing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it's a mutation tool ('updates'), has safety mechanisms ('safely'), and implements automatic retry logic for version conflicts. However, it doesn't mention permissions, rate limits, or what 'safely' entails beyond retries.
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?
Single sentence efficiently conveys core functionality and key behavioral trait. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it perfectly front-loaded and concise.
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?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the basic 'what' and key safety behavior but lacks information about return values, error conditions, or detailed operational constraints. It's minimally adequate but has clear gaps given the complexity.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 5 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score of 3 for adequate but not enhanced parameter semantics.
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 specific action ('updates a wiki page') with a key behavioral modifier ('safely' with 'automatic retry on version conflicts'). It distinguishes from sibling 'update_wiki_page' by emphasizing the safety mechanism, providing clear differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context ('on version conflicts') but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. the regular 'update_wiki_page' or other wiki-related tools. It provides clear functional context but lacks explicit alternative guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-azure-devops MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/xrmghost/mcp-azure-devops/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/xrmghost/mcp-azure-devops)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-azure-devops MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/xrmghost/mcp-azure-devops/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/xrmghost/mcp-azure-devops)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/xrmghost/mcp-azure-devops'

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