Skip to main content
Glama
Tiberriver256

Azure DevOps MCP Server

by Tiberriver256
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

update_work_item

Update an existing Azure DevOps work item's fields like state, title, tags, or priority to keep project tracking accurate.

Instructions

Update an existing work item

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tagsNoOverwrite/set the complete set of tags
stateNoThe updated state of the work item
titleNoThe updated title of the work item
areaPathNoThe updated area path for the work item
priorityNoThe updated priority of the work item
tagsToAddNoList of tags to append to the work item
assignedToNoThe email or name of the user to assign the work item to
workItemIdYesThe ID of the work item to update
descriptionNoWork item description in HTML format. Multi-line text fields (i.e., System.History, AcceptanceCriteria, etc.) must use HTML format. Do not use CDATA tags.
tagsToRemoveNoList of tags to remove from the work item
iterationPathNoThe updated iteration path for the work item
additionalFieldsNoAdditional Azure DevOps fields to update by reference name (fields not exposed as named parameters). Example for Bug severity: { "Microsoft.VSTS.Common.Severity": "1 - Critical" } (accepted values: "1 - Critical", "2 - High", "3 - Medium", "4 - Low"). Multi-line text fields (i.e., System.History, AcceptanceCriteria, etc.) must use HTML format. Do not use CDATA tags.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.0.6
    • changedInput schema / properties / additionalFields / description
      Previous value: -"Additional fields to update on the work item. Multi-line text fields (i.e., System.History, AcceptanceCriteria, etc.) must use HTML format. Do not use CDATA tags."New value: +"Additional Azure DevOps fields to update by reference name (fields not exposed as named parameters). Example for Bug severity: { \"Microsoft.VSTS.Common.Severity\": \"1 - Critical\" } (accepted values: \"1 - Critical\", \"2 - High\", \"3 - Medium\", \"4 - Low\"). Multi-line text fields (i.e., System.History, AcceptanceCriteria, etc.) must use HTML format. Do not use CDATA tags."
    • addedInput schema / properties / additionalFields / propertyNames
      Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / tags
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Overwrite/set the complete set of tags",
+  "items": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / tagsToAdd
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "List of tags to append to the work item",
+  "items": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / tagsToRemove
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "List of tags to remove from the work item",
+  "items": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}
  3. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.0.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / additionalFields / description
      Previous value: -"Additional fields to update on the work item"New value: +"Additional fields to update on the work item. Multi-line text fields (i.e., System.History, AcceptanceCriteria, etc.) must use HTML format. Do not use CDATA tags."
    • changedInput schema / properties / description / description
      Previous value: -"The updated description of the work item"New value: +"Work item description in HTML format. Multi-line text fields (i.e., System.History, AcceptanceCriteria, etc.) must use HTML format. Do not use CDATA tags."
  4. First observed

TDQS

C2.5/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it says nothing beyond the name. It does not state that this is a partial update (only provided fields change), what happens to unspecified fields, permission requirements, or how the tags overwrite/append semantics interact across the three tag parameters.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The single sentence is front-loaded and has no waste, but it is under-specified rather than efficient. Brevity here reflects a lack of content, not disciplined conciseness.

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 12-parameter mutation tool with nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It should at minimum state the partial-update semantics and the resulting side effects, which an agent needs to invoke this safely.

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 12 parameters, including the tag overwrite/append/remove distinction and the additionalFields reference-name convention. The description adds no parameter meaning of its own, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description names a clear verb (update) and resource (work item), so the basic action is understandable. However, it offers no differentiation from siblings like create_work_item, get_work_item, or manage_work_item_link, and adds nothing about scope or supported field set beyond the bare name.

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 this tool versus alternatives such as create_work_item or get_work_item, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The purpose is only inferable from the verb in the name.

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