get_work_itemRetrieve a specific Azure DevOps work item by its ID, returning all fields such as title, state, assignee, and tags.
Fetch a single work item by id, including all of its fields (title, state, assignee, tags, …).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Work item id (from query_work_items) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.3Input schema / properties / id / descriptionPrevious value: -"Work item id"New value: +"Work item id (from query_work_items)"v0.2.2Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseInput schema / properties / id / maximumAdded value: +9007199254740991Input schema / properties / id / minimumAdded value: +-9007199254740991v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the tool returns 'all of its fields', which is useful context. However, it doesn't disclose error handling, rate limits, or authentication requirements, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden. No contradiction with 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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and resource, then adds detail on fields. There is no filler or redundancy.
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?
For a simple fetch tool with one parameter and annotations covering safety, the description is nearly complete. It mentions the return fields, though it doesn't specify the exact response format or error behavior. Given the absence of an output schema, the description could have added a bit more about the response structure, but overall it's adequate for an agent to call it correctly.
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% description coverage; the parameter 'id' is documented as 'Work item id (from query_work_items)', providing context. The description does not add any additional semantic meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema already documents the parameter well.
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 tool's purpose: 'Fetch a single work item by id' with a specific resource and action. It also enumerates the fields returned, distinguishing it from list tools like query_work_items. The verb 'Fetch' and resource 'work item' are explicit.
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?
The description implies usage (fetch by id) but doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives. The parameter description 'from query_work_items' hints at a workflow, but the description itself lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. There's no mention of exclusions or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.