Fetch Azure DevOps work items by ID and add them to local store. Optionally include comments and download attachments.
Fetch specific work items by ID from Azure DevOps and add to local store
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ids | Yes | Work item IDs to fetch | |
| include_comments | No | Fetch comments | |
| include_attachments | No | Download attachments |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that fetched items are added to a local store, which is a meaningful side effect. However, it does not explain merge/overwrite behavior, failure semantics for invalid IDs, permissions needed, or whether the remote system remains untouched beyond being read.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence conveys the action, the target resource, the source, and the side effect with no filler. The most important information is front-loaded and every phrase earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is adequate for a simple fetch operation with well-documented parameters, but it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over closely related siblings and does not describe return values or local-store update behavior. Given no output schema and no annotations, a bit more context would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already well-documented in the schema. The description only reinforces that IDs are the focus and does not add new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Fetch'), a specific resource ('specific work items by ID'), and a clear side effect ('add to local store'). This distinguishes it from query-based siblings like ado_search and display-oriented tools like ado_show.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'by ID' implies this tool is for targeted retrieval when work item IDs are already known, contrasting with search/grep. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over ado_show, ado_list_comments, or other siblings, leaving the selection partly to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.