Retrieve details for a specific Azure DevOps work item by ID, with optional expansion of relations, fields, links, or all data.
Get details of a specific work item
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| expand | No | The level of detail to include in the response. Defaults to "all" if not specified. | |
| workItemId | Yes | The ID of the work item |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.54Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral details. 'Get details' implies a read-only operation, but it lacks specifics on permissions, error handling (e.g., missing ID), or side effects. The minimal description does not compensate for the absence of annotations.
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, clear sentence with no redundancy. It is front-loaded and efficient, containing only the essential information.
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?
Given no output schema, the description should specify what 'details' includes (e.g., fields, relations). It fails to explain the return value, making it less useful for selection among similar tools like 'get_work_item' vs 'get_pull_request'. The context signals show siblings that return details, but this tool lacks specificity.
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?
The input schema has 100% coverage for both parameters ('workItemId' and 'expand'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the verb 'get' and resource 'work item', indicating a retrieval operation for a specific item. It differentiates from sibling tools like 'list_work_items' (multiple items) and 'search_work_items' (search), but does not explicitly distinguish from other 'get' tools like 'get_pull_request'.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'search_work_items' or 'list_work_items'). There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.