Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
testit-mcp-server

testit-mcp-server

by iampopovich
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

get_work_item_history

Read-only

Retrieve a work item's change history by UUID, with options for pagination, sorting, and field search to audit modifications.

Instructions

Get work item history.

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": "get_work_item_history"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesWork item UUID.
pageNo1-based page number; alternative to skip. Uses "size" (default 50).
sizeNoPage size for "page"; alias of take.
skipNoNumber of items to skip (offset).
takeNoMax number of items to return.
orderByNoSort expression, e.g. "createdDate desc".
searchFieldNoField name to search in.
searchValueNoValue to search for in searchField.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

C2.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered, but the description adds nothing further. It does not disclose what the history entries contain, whether the response is paginated, or how ordering defaults behave across the seven optional pagination/sort parameters. For a read tool with openWorldHint, a note on result shape or size would be valuable.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The single sentence contains no waste, but that is because it contains almost nothing; it is under-specified rather than efficiently concise. There is no structure to front-load beyond the bare purpose.

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 eight parameters, no output schema, and no explanation of what a 'history' record includes, the definition leaves the agent guessing about return content and pagination semantics. A read-history endpoint needs at least a sentence describing what entries look like and how paging interacts.

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 every parameter (page, size, skip, take, orderBy, searchField, searchValue, id) is already documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond that, which is acceptable at this coverage level but earns only the baseline.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description 'Get work item history' essentially restates the tool name and title without adding specificity. It does not say what 'history' means here (field change log, audit trail, or version snapshots), which matters because sibling tools like get_work_item_versions and get_work_item_test_results_history cover overlapping ground. No differentiation from siblings is offered.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no indication of how this differs from get_work_item_versions or get_work_item_test_results_history. The agent must infer the selection criteria entirely from the tool name.

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