ado-mcp

ado_bulk_export_work_items

Read-only

Export work items selected by a WIQL query, handling large result sets through batching.

Instructions

Export work items selected by a WIQL query (batched for large result sets).

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": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "ado_bulk_export_work_items"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`query`	Yes	WIQL query selecting the work items to export
`fields`	No	Fields to include (omit for full expansion)
`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

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, consistent with export being read-only. Description adds the batching behavior, which is useful but lacks details (e.g., batch size, pagination limits). No contradictions with annotations, but could disclose more about rate limits or cancellation 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?

Single sentence with no filler. Each word adds value: 'Export', 'work items', 'selected by a WIQL query', 'batched for large result sets'. No redundancy or unnecessary details.

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?

While the description covers core functionality and batching, it omits output format details (e.g., CSV, JSON, file download) and batching mechanics (e.g., batch size, limits). With no output schema, the description should compensate, but a 3 is fair given moderate coverage.

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?

All three parameters are described in the input schema (100% coverage). The description does not add new semantics beyond 'batched for large result sets', which applies to the tool behavior rather than individual parameters. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Export' and resource 'work items selected by a WIQL query', distinguishing it from related tools like ado_get_work_items (by IDs) and ado_query_work_items (returns IDs, not exported data). The batching note adds specificity for large result sets.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., ado_get_work_items for small sets or ado_query_work_items for ID-only results). The description implies usage for large exports but doesn't clarify comparison or prerequisites (e.g., need query template).

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

Deploy Server