Skip to main content
Glama

ALM X++ MCP Server

by io.github.alimbenhelal-pro

ado_create_task

WHEN: user asks to create a DevOps Task or start development on a Work Item. Triggers: 'create task', 'créer une tâche', 'start development on', 'commencer le dev sur', 'créer un task ADO', 'new development task for WI'. Create a D365 F&O development Task work item in Azure DevOps following the project naming convention. Rules applied automatically based on the parent work item: (A) Parent title starts with a project prefix + digits (FDD/RDD/IDD/CR/...) => Task named '{Prefix} - N - {Title}', Task is child of that WI, branch '{Prefix}Task{id}'. (B) Selected WI is related to a prefixed WI (e.g. a Bug linked to a CR) => Task is child of the prefixed WI, Bug is 'related' to the Task, same naming. (C) No prefixed relation => Task named '{3-letter-type}{wiId} - N - {Title}', child of selected WI, branch '{3-letter-type}{wiId}Task{id}'. The N counter increments automatically based on existing sibling tasks. A Git branch is created automatically in the repository. Assignee and CC list are embedded in the task description. LANGUAGE RULE: write the 'description' (Proposed Solution) in the same language the user used in their request. Default is English. If the user wrote in French, write the solution in French. Static section labels (headers, field names) remain in English. Requires DEVOPS_ORG_URL + DEVOPS_PAT (Work Items: Read & Write, Code: Read & Write).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
projectNoOptional: Azure DevOps project name. Falls back to DEVOPS_PROJECT env var.
areaPathNoOptional: area path for the new task, e.g. 'MyProject\SER'. Inherits from parent if omitted.
assignToNoOptional: email address of the person to assign the task to, e.g. 'dev@company.com'.
notifyListNoOptional: comma-separated list of email addresses to notify (added to task description), e.g. 'lead@company.com,qa@company.com'.
workItemIdYesID of the selected Work Item (parent, bug, issue, etc.) to base the task on.
descriptionNoOptional: additional description / acceptance criteria text to append to the task.
effortHoursNoOptional: estimated effort in hours (Original Estimate).
repositoryIdNoOptional: Git repository name to create the branch in. If omitted, uses the first repository found.
sourceBranchNoOptional: source branch to branch from (default: repo default branch, e.g. 'main').
iterationPathNoOptional: iteration path for the new task, e.g. 'MyProject\Sprint 5'. Inherits from parent if omitted.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations available, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does this thoroughly: it explains automatic branch creation, child/parent linking, related-work-item handling, auto-increment naming, assignee/CC embedding, language behavior, and required credentials/scopes. This far exceeds what the schema or annotations provide.

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 long but dense and well-structured. It front-loads the WHEN/trigger section, then organizes the naming logic into clear rules (A/B/C), followed by branch, assignment, language, and credentials. Every sentence contributes actionable information; nothing is redundant filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a complex mutation tool with 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is complete. It covers prerequisites, trigger conditions, naming conventions, branching behavior, assignee handling, language expectations, and required permissions. An agent has enough context to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 schema covers all parameters with detailed descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema, especially for workItemId (defining three parent-relationship scenarios and resulting task names/branches), repositoryId (branch creation), and assignTo/notifyList (embedded in description). Not every parameter is elaborated in prose, but the most consequential ones are.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'create a D365 F&O development Task work item in Azure DevOps'. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools by focusing on creation/starting development, with trigger examples. The naming convention and parent-relationship rules further make the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 gives explicit WHEN conditions and trigger phrases ('create task', 'start development on', 'créer une tâche'), which tells an agent when to select it. It also specifies the language rule and parent-based routing logic. However, it never explicitly says when not to use this tool or names alternatives like ado_update_workitem, so it stops short of a full when-not/alternatives guidance.

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

All ALM X++ MCP Server toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes and clear triggers, reducing ambiguity. For example, PR-related tools are separated into analysis, listing, commenting, and dependency mapping. However, some overlap exists between find_references, find_extensions, and find_callers, which could confuse an agent without careful descriptions.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names follow a consistent snake_case pattern with verb_noun structure within subgroups (e.g., ado_*, find_*, search_*, generate_*). There is no mixing of camelCase or other styles, though the variety of prefixes slightly reduces predictability.

Tool Count3/5

With 38 tools, the server feels slightly over-scoped for its domain. While each tool has a specific function, the number is high compared to typical well-scoped servers (10-15 tools). Some tools like find_references and find_callers could be consolidated.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers a broad range of D365 F&O development and DevOps tasks, including code search, analysis, security, performance, upgrades, and work item management. Minor gaps exist, such as the absence of direct object modification or batch job management, but the core workflows are well covered.

Resources