get_iteration_work_itemsFetch work items assigned to a specific team iteration or sprint. Provide the iteration ID to list all work items for that sprint.
Get work items assigned to a team iteration/sprint.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| team | No | Team name or ID. Omit to use the project's default team context. | |
| project | No | ||
| iterationId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does 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 only states what is returned (work items assigned to an iteration) but doesn't disclose whether it's read-only, what filtering or pagination behavior exists, or what the response structure looks like. For a read operation this is a moderate gap.
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 concise sentence that front-loads the core action and resource. It earns its place with no wasted words, though it could add a bit more context without becoming verbose.
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 the tool has no annotations, no output schema, and only 33% schema description coverage, the description is too thin. It doesn't explain the return format, the meaning of the 'project' parameter, or any behavioral details like whether it returns only assigned work items or includes child items. An agent would need to infer too much to call this correctly in all cases.
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?
Schema description coverage is only 33% (only 'team' has a description). The description adds context that the tool returns work items for an iteration, which clarifies the purpose of iterationId, but it doesn't explain the 'project' parameter or how 'team' interacts with the default context beyond what the schema already says. The description partially compensates but doesn't fully cover the undocumented parameters.
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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('work items assigned to a team iteration/sprint'), which clearly identifies the tool's function. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_work_item or query_work_items, but the iteration/sprint scoping provides enough distinction.
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 context (retrieving work items for an iteration) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like query_work_items or get_work_item. No exclusions or alternative routing are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.