devops-wrangler

ado_update_item

Update work item fields in Azure DevOps—title, state, assignee, description, area path, sprint, story points—to keep project data accurate and current.

Instructions

Update a work item's fields (title, state, assignee, description, area path, sprint, story points)

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "ado_update_item"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Work item ID
`state`	No	New state (e.g., 'Active', 'Closed')
`title`	No	New title
`areaPath`	No	New area path
`assignedTo`	No	Assign to email address
`description`	No	New description
`storyPoints`	No	Story points (for User Story, Bug)
`iterationPath`	No	Sprint/iteration path

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.1Aug 9, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as partial update semantics (whether omitted fields are preserved), required prerequisites (existing item ID), or response format. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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, clear sentence with no redundant content. It efficiently communicates the core purpose and scope.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description does not explain return values, failure modes, or behavior when only some fields are provided. Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters), the description is too sparse to fully prepare an agent.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description merely lists the same field names without adding extra meaning or clarifying relationships, providing no added value over the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool updates a work item's fields, listing specific fields (title, state, assignee, etc.). This distinguishes it from siblings like ado_create_items, ado_delete_item, and ado_query_items.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by the verb 'update' and the sibling context, but no explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'use for existing items, not for creation'). The description provides field options but no scenarios.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server