ado-mcp

ado_add_test_cases

Add existing test case work items to a test suite in Azure DevOps using plan ID, suite ID, and work item IDs.

Instructions

Add existing test case work items to a suite.

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": {
      "planId": "<planId>",
      "suiteId": "<suiteId>",
      "workItemIds": "<workItemIds>"
    },
    "name": "ado_add_test_cases"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`planId`	Yes	Test plan ID
`project`	No	Project name or ID (defaults to ADO_DEFAULT_PROJECT)
`suiteId`	Yes	Test suite ID
`workItemIds`	Yes	Test case work item IDs to add

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 30, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Add', indicating a mutation, but fails to describe side effects (e.g., whether duplicates are handled), error conditions, or return behavior. This is insufficient for safe use.

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?

The description consists of a single, clear sentence that conveys the core purpose with zero wasted words. It is appropriately front-loaded and concise.

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?

Given 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the effect on the suite, success criteria, or any required plan context, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all 4 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, but it does not contradict it.

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?

Description clearly states the action (Add), resource (existing test case work items), and target (to a suite). It distinguishes from creating new test cases or running tests. However, it omits the test plan context, which is implicit in the suite ID.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as requiring an existing test plan and suite, or contrast with tools like ado_create_test_case or ado_list_test_cases.

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

Deploy Server