Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Azure DevOps MCP Server

Azure DevOps MCP Server

by billg118
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

create_work_item

Create a new Azure DevOps work item by specifying its type and title, then set optional details like priority, tags, parent, area, iteration, and assignee.

Instructions

Create a new work item

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tagsNoTags to add to the work item
titleYesThe title of the work item
areaPathNoThe area path for the work item
parentIdNoThe ID of the parent work item to create a relationship with
priorityNoThe priority of the work item
projectIdNoThe ID or name of the project (Default: no default project)
assignedToNoThe email or name of the user to assign the work item to
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.
workItemTypeYesThe type of work item to create (e.g., "Task", "Bug", "User Story")
iterationPathNoThe iteration path for the work item
organizationIdNoThe ID or name of the organization (Default: example-org)
additionalFieldsNoAdditional Azure DevOps fields to set 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. First observedv0.1.54

TDQS

C2.5/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden for a mutation tool, yet it discloses nothing. It does not say what permissions/scope (organizationId, projectId) are needed, whether the write is reversible, what the server assigns automatically (ID, state, defaults), or what the call returns.

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 trivially short and contains no filler, but its brevity reflects under-specification rather than discipline. It is front-loaded but says nothing an agent could not infer from the name alone.

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?

With 12 parameters, a required workItemType/title pair, a nested free-form additionalFields object, no annotations, and no output schema, the definition is far too thin. An agent gets no guidance on required-field semantics, defaulting behavior for organization/project, or expected response.

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 all 12 parameters documented in-schema including the tricky additionalFields HTML/no-CDATA rule, so the description need not repeat them. It adds no meaning beyond the schema, which is the baseline 3 case rather than a deficiency.

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 phrase 'Create a new work item' names a specific verb and resource, so an agent knows it is a create operation for the work-item entity. However, it is nearly a restatement of the tool name, and it gives no differentiation from siblings such as update_work_item, create_work_item_attachment, or manage_work_item_link.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. Nothing indicates when an agent should create a work item here versus linking, attaching, or updating one via the sibling tools.

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