Retrieve detailed information about a specific work item by providing its unique ID and organization ID to view its current status, fields, and attributes.
[Project Management] Get information about a work item
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| workItemId | Yes | Work item unique identifier, required parameter | |
| organizationId | Yes | Organization ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.60Input schema / $schemaRemoved value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Input schema / properties / organizationId / descriptionPrevious value: -"Organization ID, can be found in the basic information page of the organization admin console"New value: +"Organization ID"v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only says 'Get information.' It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, whether special permissions are required, what information is returned, or potential error conditions. The verb 'Get' implies a read operation, but this is implicit rather than explicit.
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?
The description is a single, efficiently worded sentence with a useful category prefix. It is front-loaded and contains no filler. However, the brevity comes at the cost of valuable behavioral and usage details.
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?
Despite the tool's apparent simplicity, there is no output schema and no annotations, so the vague phrase 'information about a work item' leaves the expected return value unclear. The description does not explain what fields or level of detail are returned, nor does it clarify the role of organizationId beyond the schema.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so both workItemId and organizationId are documented in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 and resource: 'Get information about a work item.' It clearly identifies the tool as a retrieval operation for a single work item, distinguishing it from related tools like get_work_item_types, get_work_item_workflow, and list_work_items. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other 'get_*' siblings for work item sub-resources.
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?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_workitems or list_workitem_activities. The description only states the basic operation with no mention of appropriate use cases, exclusions, or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.