Skip to main content
Glama
danielealbano

mcp-for-azure-devops-boards

azdo_update_work_item

Update Azure DevOps work items by modifying fields such as state, title, description, tags, and priority.

Instructions

Update work item

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesWork item ID to update
tagsNoComma-separated tags (e.g., "bug, critical, ui")
stateNoState (New, Active, Resolved, Closed, etc.)
titleNoWork item title
effortNoEffort estimate in hours
fieldsNoOptional extra fields as JSON string (for custom fields)
formatNoFormat for large text fields (description, acceptance criteria, repro steps, justification): "markdown" or "html" (default: "markdown")markdown
projectYesAzDO project name
activityNoActivity type (Development, Testing, Documentation, etc.)
priorityNoPriority (1-4, where 1 is highest)
severityNoSeverity for bugs (Critical, High, Medium, Low)
area_pathNoArea path (e.g., "MyProject\\Team1")
board_rowNoBoard row/swimlane to place the work item in
start_dateNoStart date (YYYY-MM-DD)
assigned_toNoUser to assign the work item to (email or display name)
descriptionNoWork item description (use markdown syntax when format is "markdown", HTML tags when format is "html")
repro_stepsNoReproduction steps (use markdown syntax when format is "markdown", HTML tags when format is "html")
target_dateNoTarget/due date (YYYY-MM-DD)
board_columnNoBoard column to place the work item in
organizationYesAzDO org name
story_pointsNoStory points for estimation
justificationNoJustification (CMMI process template; use markdown syntax when format is "markdown", HTML tags when format is "html")
iteration_pathNoIteration path (e.g., "MyProject\\Sprint 1")
remaining_workNoRemaining work in hours
acceptance_criteriaNoAcceptance criteria (use markdown syntax when format is "markdown", HTML tags when format is "html")
Behavior1/5

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

No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits (e.g., idempotency, side effects, permissions, or rate limits). The agent receives no insight into how the tool behaves beyond the simple verb.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is extremely short but lacks substance. It is nearly a tautology (restating the tool name). It could be expanded to include key details without becoming verbose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (25 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the one-line description is woefully inadequate. It omits prerequisites, return values, and behavioral context, leaving the agent underinformed.

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 each parameter is documented. The input schema fully describes the fields. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline.

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 'Update work item' clearly indicates a write operation on an existing work item, distinguishing it from create or query siblings. However, it lacks specificity on what aspects can be updated, which could be clearer.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'azdo_create_work_item' or 'azdo_link_work_items'. There are no context hints or exclusions.

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/danielealbano/mcp-for-azure-devops-boards'

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