Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Azure DevOps MCP Server with PAT Authentication

Azure DevOps MCP Server with PAT Authentication

by ennuiii
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

wit_list_backlog_work_items

Retrieve work items from a specific backlog category in Azure DevOps for a given project and team using PAT authentication.

Instructions

Retrieve a list of backlogs of for a given project, team, and backlog category

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "project": "<project>",
      "team": "<team>",
      "backlogId": "<backlogId>"
    },
    "name": "wit_list_backlog_work_items"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
backlogIdYesThe ID of the backlog category to retrieve work items from.
projectYesThe name or ID of the Azure DevOps project.
teamYesThe name or ID of the Azure DevOps team.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves a list, implying a read-only operation, but does not specify whether it's paginated, the format of returned items, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error conditions. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Retrieve a list of backlogs of work items') and specifies the context ('for a given project, team, and backlog category'). There is no wasted wording, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 required parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and parameters but lacks details on usage guidelines, behavioral traits, and output format. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should do more to compensate, but it meets a basic threshold.

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?

The description mentions the parameters ('project, team, and backlog category'), but the input schema already has 100% description coverage with clear explanations for each parameter. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action ('Retrieve a list') and the resource ('backlogs of work items'), specifying the scope with 'for a given project, team, and backlog category'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'wit_list_backlogs' (which likely lists backlog categories) by focusing on work items within a backlog. However, it could be more specific about what 'backlogs of work items' entails (e.g., items in a specific backlog level).

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools like 'wit_get_work_items_for_iteration' or 'wit_my_work_items', nor does it specify prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid backlog ID from 'wit_list_backlogs'). Usage is implied by the parameters but not explicitly stated.

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

Related Tools