ado-mcp-server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

get_work_item

Read-only

Retrieve complete details for a single Azure DevOps work item, including description, repro steps, acceptance criteria, scheduling fields, and linked items, commits, and pull requests.

Instructions

Full details of one work item: description, repro steps, acceptance criteria, scheduling fields and links (parent, children, related, tested by, commits, PRs).

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": {
      "work_item_id": "<work_item_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_work_item"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`work_item_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Nov 9, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scope detail by listing the exact sub-resources returned (links, commits, PRs), but says nothing about behavior when the ID is invalid, missing, or inaccessible. With annotations in place, a 3 is fair.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the returned fields are listed compactly and every clause carries information. Nothing could be trimmed without losing scope detail.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the return contents, which is the main thing an agent needs. What's missing is the provenance/validity of work_item_id and any error behavior, minor but notable for a lookup tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% for the single required parameter, so the description carries the full burden of explaining work_item_id. It never mentions the parameter, its type, or how to obtain a valid ID (e.g., from search_work_items). The gap is a real risk for a one-parameter lookup tool.

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 names a specific verb-and-resource ('Full details of one work item') and enumerates the payload it returns, which distinguishes it from the list/search siblings. It does not explicitly name the alternative tools (search_work_items, get_work_item_history), so it stops short of a 5.

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 only implied: an agent can infer this is the single-item fetch used after a search yields an ID. There is no statement of when to prefer it over search_work_items or get_work_item_history, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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