ado-mcp-server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

get_work_item_history

Read-only

Retrieve the change history of an Azure DevOps work item to see who modified which fields and the previous and new values for audit or troubleshooting.

Instructions

Change history of a work item: who changed which fields, from what to what.

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_history"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`top`	No
`work_item_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Nov 9, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

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 externally. The description adds that results are field-level deltas plus an actor, which is useful behavioral context, but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or how complete the history is.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the resource and followed immediately by the payload shape. No filler, no redundancy.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the safety profile is in annotations. However, for a tool with an undocumented paging parameter and no stated ordering, the description leaves real gaps an agent would need to call it confidently.

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%, so the description carries the full burden, yet it never mentions either parameter. It implies a single-work-item scope but leaves 'top' (default 50) and its paging meaning entirely undocumented in prose and schema alike.

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 resource (work item change history) and specifies the shape of the content (who changed which fields, from what to what), which clearly separates it from sibling reads like get_work_item or get_comments. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so it does not fully earn 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 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 alternatives such as get_work_item (current state) or get_comments (discussion), and no exclusions. The agent must infer from the noun phrase alone that this tool is for audit/traceability queries.

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