Skip to main content
Glama
Tiberriver256

Azure DevOps MCP Server

by Tiberriver256
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

search_work_items

Search Azure DevOps work items across projects and organizations, then filter by state, type, assignee, area, or project to find relevant tasks, bugs, and user stories.

Instructions

Search for work items across projects in Azure DevOps

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
topYesNumber of results to return (default: 100, max: 1000)
skipYesNumber of results to skip for pagination (default: 0)
filtersNoOptional filters to narrow search results
orderByNoOptions for sorting search results
projectIdNoThe ID or name of the project to search in. If omitted, the search runs across the organization when supported.
searchTextYesThe text to search for in work items
includeFacetsYesWhether to include faceting in results (default: true)
organizationIdNoThe ID or name of the organization (Default: mycompany)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.0.6
    • addedInput schema / properties / skip / maximum
      Added value: +9007199254740991
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "searchText"
-]New value: +[
+  "searchText",
+  "top",
+  "skip",
+  "includeFacets"
+]
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv0.1.10
    • changedInput schema / properties / projectId / description
      Previous value: -"The ID or name of the project to search in (Default: MyProject). If not provided, the default project will be used."New value: +"The ID or name of the project to search in. If omitted, the search runs across the organization when supported."
  3. Changed3 schema fields changedv1.0.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / organizationId
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "The ID or name of the organization (Default: mycompany)",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / projectId / description
      Previous value: -"The ID or name of the project to search in"New value: +"The ID or name of the project to search in (Default: MyProject). If not provided, the default project will be used."
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "searchText",
-  "projectId"
-]New value: +[
+  "searchText"
+]
  4. First observed

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discharges almost none of it. It does not disclose whether search is full-text or field-scoped, pagination behavior, authentication requirements, result limits, or how the facets flag changes output.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It is efficient, though for a task with 8 parameters and nested filter objects it is arguably under-specified rather than optimally sized.

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?

For a tool with 8 parameters, nested objects, a required field set, and no output schema or annotations, one sentence is insufficient. An agent gets no information about result shape, facets output, pagination interaction, or when this differs from list_work_items.

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% with detailed per-parameter descriptions (including nested filters, orderBy, and top/skip semantics), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond 'across projects', which only loosely gestures at projectId.

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?

States a specific verb (Search) and resource (work items) with a scope qualifier (across projects in Azure DevOps). It is distinguishable from list_work_items by the search framing, though it never explicitly differentiates itself from that sibling.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use search_work_items versus list_work_items or search_code. The word 'across projects' hints at scope, but no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are stated.

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