Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

ALM X++ MCP Server

by io.github.alimbenhelal-pro
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

ado_test_status

Read-onlyIdempotent

WHEN: the user asks whether a feature is tested and what the results are: 'is WI N tested', 'where are we on the tests', 'état des tests de la story', 'what failed'. Lists the test cases tied to a work item with their latest outcome in its test plan suite (Passed, Failed, Blocked, Not run) and a summary. Read only. Pass planId when you know it (ado_create_test_plan returns it); otherwise the plan named 'Tests - WI {id} ...' is looked for. A test case that is not in any suite of the plan shows as 'not in the plan'.

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": {
      "workItemId": "<workItemId>"
    },
    "name": "ado_test_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
planIdNoOptional: the test plan id.
projectNoAzure DevOps project. Falls back to DEVOPS_PROJECT.
workItemIdYesWork item the tests verify, e.g. 6587.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive, and the description reinforces this with 'Read only.' Beyond the annotations, it discloses non-obvious fallback logic - if planId is omitted, a plan named 'Tests - WI {id} ...' is sought - and the edge case where test cases not in any suite are labelled 'not in the plan'. It does not say what happens when the naming fallback finds no plan or multiple candidates, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

It is front-loaded with a WHEN clause, then a statement of what is returned and its possible values, then read-only status, then parameter guidance, then the edge case. Four tight sentences, each adding distinct information, with no repetition of schema content.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description has to stand in for return values, which it does by describing the list of test cases, the outcome vocabulary (Passed, Failed, Blocked, Not run), and the accompanying summary. For a three-parameter read tool, nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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?

Because schema coverage is 100%, the schema documents all three parameters. The description still adds meaning: it says when to pass planId and where to obtain it (ado_create_test_plan), and it explains the implicit fallback behaviour when planId is omitted, which the schema does not convey.

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 verb and resource are stated concretely: 'Lists the test cases tied to a work item with their latest outcome in its test plan suite (Passed, Failed, Blocked, Not run) and a summary'. This is distinguishable from sibling tools that record results or create test plans, and the opening 'WHEN:' clause pins the intent immediately.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description lists concrete trigger phrases ('is WI N tested', 'where are we on the tests', 'what failed'), which tells the agent exactly when this tool is the right choice. It also points to ado_create_test_plan as the source of planId, routing the agent between the two sibling tools.

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
Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources