ado-mcp

ado_add_work_item_comment

Add a comment to an Azure DevOps work item. Provide the work item ID and comment text to attach notes, updates, or feedback directly.

Instructions

Add a comment 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>",
      "text": "<text>"
    },
    "name": "ado_add_work_item_comment"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Work item ID
`text`	Yes	Comment text (markdown/HTML)
`project`	No	Project name or ID (defaults to ADO_DEFAULT_PROJECT)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 30, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations exist, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, side effects (e.g., triggering notifications), or whether comments are appended. The absence of transparency is significant for a mutation tool.

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?

The description is a single sentence with no fluff, front-loading the key purpose. While very concise, it omits important contextual details that could be included without losing brevity.

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?

Without an output schema, the description should hint at the return value (e.g., the created comment) or provide constraints. It does not, making the tool definition incomplete for an agent to understand the full effect and response.

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 100% (all three parameters have descriptions), so baseline is 3. The description 'Add a comment to a work item' does not add further meaning beyond the schema (e.g., that 'text' supports markdown is already in the schema).

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Add a comment to a work item' clearly states the verb (add) and the resource (comment to a work item). It distinguishes from siblings like ado_get_work_item_comments (get) and ado_create_pr_thread (PR comment).

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 like ado_create_pr_thread for pull request comments or ado_update_work_item for other modifications. The description lacks any context for appropriate usage or prerequisites.

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

Deploy Server