ado-mcp-server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

search_test_cases

Read-only

Search test case work items by title, state, owner, tags, area, or iteration to find the right cases for review, execution, or updates.

Instructions

Search Test Case work items by title text, state, owner ("@me"), tags, area or iteration.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "search_test_cases"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`top`	No
`tags`	No
`text`	No
`state`	No
`project`	No
`area_path`	No
`assigned_to`	No
`iteration_path`	No

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 the "@me" owner convention, which is genuine added context, but says nothing about result limits, ordering, or what happens when filters are omitted, even though a "top" parameter with a default of 100 exists.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single sentence with the resource and filters front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though it is arguably too terse for an 8-parameter tool.

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 8 parameters at 0% schema coverage and no annotations carrying semantic detail, the description should be doing the heavy lifting, but two parameters ("top" and "project") are never addressed. An agent cannot learn from this definition that the search can be scoped to a project or that results are capped at 100.

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 0%, so the schema contributes only parameter names and defaults. The description compensates by naming text, state, owner, tags, area, and iteration, but leaves "top" and "project" unmentioned and gives no format hints (tag syntax, wildcards, path syntax) beyond the "@me" example.

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 states a specific verb ("Search") and a specific resource ("Test Case work items") plus the filterable dimensions, so an agent knows exactly what the tool returns. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling search_work_items, so it falls 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 Guidelines2/5

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

There is no when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and no reference to alternatives such as search_work_items (broader work item search) or get_test_case (single retrieval by id). Usage is only implied by the verb "Search".

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