ado-mcp

ado_add_work_item_attachment

Upload text content as an attachment to an Azure DevOps work item for supporting documentation.

Instructions

Upload a text attachment and link it to a work item.

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>",
      "fileName": "<fileName>",
      "content": "<content>"
    },
    "name": "ado_add_work_item_attachment"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Work item ID
`comment`	No
`content`	Yes	Text content to upload
`project`	No	Project name or ID (defaults to ADO_DEFAULT_PROJECT)
`fileName`	Yes	Attachment file name, e.g. "log.txt"

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It only states the basic action without disclosing side effects, permissions, limits, or return behavior.

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, concise sentence without unnecessary words. All essential information is present, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 the tool has 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It omits any mention of return values, error conditions, or prerequisites (e.g., the work item must exist).

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 coverage is 80%, meaning most parameters are described in the schema. The description adds that the attachment is text, which reinforces but doesn't significantly extend understanding beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the action ('upload') and the resource ('text attachment' and 'work item'), effectively distinguishing it from related tools like ado_add_work_item_comment. It is specific enough to indicate its function.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The description lacks any contextual advice on prerequisites or scenarios.

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

Deploy Server