Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
adtk

adtk

by zach-snell
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Go
Remote

manage_boards

List, retrieve, or view columns of Azure DevOps Kanban boards. Specify project key; optionally scope by team and board.

Instructions

Manage Azure DevOps Kanban boards. Actions: 'list', 'get', 'get_columns'

Tool call template

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

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

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
actionYesAction to perform: 'list', 'get', 'get_columns'
project_keyNoProject name (required)
teamNoTeam name (optional, scopes to a specific team)
board_idNoBoard name or ID (required for get, get_columns)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behaviors. The actions are all read-only, but the term 'manage' may misleadingly imply mutation. No information about authentication, side effects, or restrictions is given.

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 concise with a single sentence, but the word 'Manage' is vague and could be replaced with a more specific verb for clarity.

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?

The description omits crucial context such as output format, required parameters for specific actions (e.g., board_id for get/get_columns), and permission requirements, making it incomplete for a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the description adds little beyond listing actions. It does not explain parameter relationships or usage patterns, hence a baseline score of 3.

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 tool manages Azure DevOps Kanban boards and lists three specific actions ('list', 'get', 'get_columns'), providing a specific verb-resource pair and differentiating from sibling tools that manage other 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 over alternatives, nor does it explain which action to choose for a given scenario. It only lists actions without context.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools