Skip to main content
Glama
Tiberriver256

Azure DevOps MCP Server

by Tiberriver256
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

get_work_item_comments

Retrieve comments and discussion history for a specific Azure DevOps work item. Supports filtering, ordering, and pagination.

Instructions

Get comments and discussion history for a specific work item

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
topNoMaximum number of comments to return
orderYesThe order in which to sort the comments (Default: "asc")asc
expandYesThe level of detail to include in the comments response (Default: "all")all
projectIdNoThe ID or name of the project
workItemIdYesThe ID of the work item
includeDeletedNoInclude deleted comments
continuationTokenNoContinuation token to retrieve the next page of comments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.0.6
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "workItemId"
-]New value: +[
+  "workItemId",
+  "expand",
+  "order"
+]
  2. Added

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations, so the description carries full burden. It says 'get comments and discussion history' but doesn't disclose read-only nature, pagination (continuationToken), includeDeleted behavior, or expand's effect on output. For a read operation with 7 params, this is insufficient behavioral context.

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?

A single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given 7 parameters, pagination, and no annotations or output schema, the description is too thin. It omits pagination guidance, expand behavior, and whether deleted comments are included by default. An agent has to consult the schema for every operational detail.

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 7 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond 'comments and discussion history'. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Clear verb+resource: 'Get comments and discussion history for a specific work item'. It's specific and distinguishable from sibling tools like get_pull_request_comments, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them. A solid, unambiguous statement of purpose.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention pagination behavior (continuationToken) or how it relates to work item details. The sibling get_pull_request_comments is for PRs, but no routing guidance is provided.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools