Skip to main content
Glama
Tiberriver256

Azure DevOps MCP Server

update_wiki_page

Modify Azure DevOps wiki pages by updating content in markdown format with optional comments for tracking changes.

Instructions

Update content of a wiki page

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
organizationIdNoThe ID or name of the organization (Default: mycompany)
projectIdNoThe ID or name of the project (Default: MyProject)
wikiIdYesThe ID or name of the wiki
pagePathYesPath of the wiki page to update
contentYesThe new content for the wiki page in markdown format
commentNoOptional comment for the update

Implementation Reference

  • The main handler function that executes the logic to update a wiki page using the Azure DevOps wiki client.
    export async function updateWikiPage(options: UpdateWikiPageOptions) {
      const validatedOptions = UpdateWikiPageSchema.parse(options);
    
      const { organizationId, projectId, wikiId, pagePath, content, comment } =
        validatedOptions;
    
      // Create the client
      const client = await azureDevOpsClient.getWikiClient({
        organizationId: organizationId ?? defaultOrg,
      });
    
      // Prepare the wiki page content
      const wikiPageContent = {
        content,
      };
    
      // Update the wiki page
      const updatedPage = await client.updatePage(
        wikiPageContent,
        projectId ?? defaultProject,
        wikiId,
        pagePath,
        {
          comment: comment ?? undefined,
        },
      );
    
      return updatedPage;
    }
  • Zod schema defining the input parameters and validation for the update_wiki_page tool.
    export const UpdateWikiPageSchema = z.object({
      organizationId: z
        .string()
        .optional()
        .nullable()
        .describe(`The ID or name of the organization (Default: ${defaultOrg})`),
      projectId: z
        .string()
        .optional()
        .nullable()
        .describe(`The ID or name of the project (Default: ${defaultProject})`),
      wikiId: z.string().min(1).describe('The ID or name of the wiki'),
      pagePath: z.string().min(1).describe('Path of the wiki page to update'),
      content: z
        .string()
        .min(1)
        .describe('The new content for the wiki page in markdown format'),
      comment: z
        .string()
        .optional()
        .nullable()
        .describe('Optional comment for the update'),
    });
  • Tool definition registration in the wikis tools array, specifying name, description, and input schema.
    {
      name: 'update_wiki_page',
      description: 'Update content of a wiki page',
      inputSchema: zodToJsonSchema(UpdateWikiPageSchema),
    },
  • Dispatching logic in the wikis request handler that invokes updateWikiPage for the 'update_wiki_page' tool name.
    case 'update_wiki_page': {
      const args = UpdateWikiPageSchema.parse(request.params.arguments);
      const result = await updateWikiPage({
        organizationId: args.organizationId ?? defaultOrg,
        projectId: args.projectId ?? defaultProject,
        wikiId: args.wikiId,
        pagePath: args.pagePath,
        content: args.content,
        comment: args.comment,
      });
      return {
        content: [{ type: 'text', text: JSON.stringify(result, null, 2) }],
      };
  • Export statement registering the handler and schema from the update-wiki-page feature module.
    export { updateWikiPage, UpdateWikiPageSchema } from './update-wiki-page';
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool updates content, implying a mutation operation, but lacks critical details: whether it overwrites or merges content, what permissions are required, if it's reversible, or how conflicts are handled. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 the tool's complexity (a mutation operation with 6 parameters) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like side effects, error conditions, or response format. For a tool that modifies data, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage.

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?

The description adds minimal value beyond the input schema, which has 100% description coverage. It mentions 'content' but doesn't elaborate on format or constraints beyond what the schema provides ('The new content for the wiki page in markdown format'). No additional context is given for other parameters like 'organizationId' or 'comment', so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description clearly states the verb ('Update') and resource ('content of a wiki page'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'create_wiki_page' or 'get_wiki_page' by specifying it's for updating existing content. However, it doesn't explicitly mention what aspects are updated beyond 'content' (e.g., metadata, title), which prevents a perfect score.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing wiki page), differentiate from similar tools like 'update_work_item' or 'update_pull_request', or specify when not to use it (e.g., for creating new pages). Usage is implied only through the verb 'Update'.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Tiberriver256/mcp-server-azure-devops'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server