Display full content of Azure DevOps work items by numeric ID or wiki pages by path, rendered as readable markdown.
Show full content of a work item (by numeric ID) or wiki page (by path). Returns formatted markdown.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| item_id | Yes | Work item ID (number) or wiki page path |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It describes the output ('Returns formatted markdown') and the read-oriented action ('show'), which implies non-mutating behavior, but it does not explicitly disclose whether the operation is read-only, whether it requires special permissions, or any failure modes. This is a moderate but not exhaustive disclosure.
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?
Two short sentences with no filler: the first states the operation and targets, the second states the return format. Everything present is useful and front-loaded.
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?
For a single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the input type, the two accepted forms, and the output format. It does not discuss error behavior or side effects, but for a 'show' operation this is a minor omission, so it is nearly complete.
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?
The schema already has 100% coverage for the single parameter, describing item_id as 'Work item ID (number) or wiki page path'. The description repeats this information ('by numeric ID' / 'by path') without adding new semantic detail, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed what the schema provides.
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 uses a specific verb ('Show full content') and identifies the exact resources (work item by numeric ID, wiki page by path) and output format (formatted markdown). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings such as ado_search, ado_children, and ado_fetch by the scope of content returned.
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 description implies when to use the tool—when you need the full content of a known work item or wiki page—but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling tools like ado_fetch or ado_search, nor does it list any exclusions. The 'by numeric ID or path' constraint provides some guidance, but no explicit alternative routing is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.