ado-mcp

ado_create_test_plan

Create a test plan in Azure DevOps to organize test cases. Specify name, project, area path, iteration, and description.

Instructions

Create a test plan.

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "ado_create_test_plan"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	Test plan name
`project`	No	Project name or ID (defaults to ADO_DEFAULT_PROJECT)
`areaPath`	No
`iteration`	No	Iteration path
`description`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 30, 2026

TDQS

C2.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations are empty, so the description carries the full burden. It only repeats the tool name without disclosing side effects, authentication requirements, or constraints. No behavioral details are provided.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single short sentence, which is concise but overly minimal. It lacks any structure or additional information that could make it more useful.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With 5 parameters, no output schema, and empty annotations, the description is severely under-specified. It does not explain what a test plan is, what the parameters represent beyond basic names, or what the tool returns. Incomplete for effective use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 60%, but the tool description adds no parameter-level detail. Two parameters (areaPath, description) lack schema descriptions, and the description does not compensate. No extra meaning beyond the schema.

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

Purpose3/5

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

Description 'Create a test plan.' clearly states the action and resource, but does not differentiate from sibling creation tools like ado_create_test_suite or ado_create_test_run. No additional context to distinguish purpose.

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 such as ado_create_test_suite or ado_get_test_plan. The description lacks any context about prerequisites or selection criteria.

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

Deploy Server