Skip to main content
Glama

ALM X++ MCP Server

by io.github.alimbenhelal-pro

ado_wiki_create_or_update_page

Destructive

AZURE DEVOPS ONLY -- Create a new wiki page, or OVERWRITE an existing one with new markdown content. ALWAYS call ado_wiki_get_page first if you intend to edit (not replace) an existing page's content, since this tool replaces the ENTIRE page body -- it does not merge/append. Automatically handles the page's ETag for safe concurrent-edit detection. Requires DEVOPS_ORG_URL + DEVOPS_PAT env vars (PAT needs Wiki: Read & Write scope).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYesWiki page path, e.g. '/Home' or '/Architecture/Deployment'. Parent pages are created automatically if missing.
contentYesFull markdown content for the page (replaces any existing content).
projectNoOptional: Azure DevOps project name. Falls back to DEVOPS_PROJECT env var.
wikiIdentifierNoWiki name or id. Omit to auto-resolve to the project's only/first wiki (call ado_wiki_list if there are several).

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The destructiveHint annotation is true, and the description reinforces it by warning the tool replaces the ENTIRE page body and does not merge/append. It also discloses ETag handling and credential/scope requirements, adding meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotation.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences with no filler: purpose, critical usage warning, behavioral guarantee, and auth requirements. Every sentence earns its place.

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 destructive 4-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage preconditions, behavior, and authentication requirements. Combined with the fully documented input schema, an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 parameters. The description reinforces that content replaces existing content and mentions auto-creation of parent pages, but it does not add substantial meaning beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: create or overwrite a wiki page with markdown content. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly naming ado_wiki_get_page and noting it does not merge/append, making its role unambiguous.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use vs alternatives: always call ado_wiki_get_page before editing an existing page instead of replacing it. Also notes parent pages are auto-created and the tool requires specific env vars and PAT scope, leaving little ambiguity.

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