ado-mcp

ado_create_classification_node

Create area or iteration path nodes in Azure DevOps for project classification, with optional start and finish dates for iterations.

Instructions

Create an area or iteration path node (admin). For iterations, pass start/finish dates in attributes.

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": {
      "structureGroup": "<structureGroup>",
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "ado_create_classification_node"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	New node name
`project`	No	Project name or ID (defaults to ADO_DEFAULT_PROJECT)
`attributes`	No	For iterations: {"startDate":"2026-01-01T00:00:00Z","finishDate":"2026-01-14T00:00:00Z"}
`parentPath`	No	Parent path under which to create the node
`structureGroup`	Yes	Which classification tree

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 30, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With empty annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'admin' to indicate required permissions, but lacks details on success/error responses, idempotency, or behavior of optional parameters like parentPath. The iteration date guidance is helpful but not comprehensive.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It delivers the core purpose and key usage guidance efficiently.

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?

Given no output schema and moderate complexity (5 params, nested objects), the description covers the primary purpose and a key parameter use case. However, it doesn't explain return values, parentPath behavior, or error handling. It is adequate but not rich.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context about admin requirement and date format for iterations, which is already in the schema example. It doesn't add significant meaning beyond the schema's descriptions.

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 clearly states the verb 'Create', the resource 'area or iteration path node', and scope 'admin'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list or get operations for classification nodes.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides a specific usage hint for iterations ('For iterations, pass start/finish dates in attributes'), which helps the agent. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like creating work items or repos, though the context is clear.

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

Deploy Server