ado-mcp

ado_delete_wiki_page

Destructive

Delete a wiki page by specifying its path and wiki ID. Removes the page from Azure DevOps wiki.

Instructions

Delete a wiki page by path. Destructive.

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": {
      "wikiId": "<wikiId>",
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "ado_delete_wiki_page"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`path`	Yes	Page path, e.g. "/Home" or "/Docs/Setup"
`wikiId`	Yes	Wiki ID or name
`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

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The description aligns with the destructiveHint annotation by stating 'Destructive', but adds little beyond that. It does not elaborate on side effects, permissions, or irreversibility, though annotations already cover the destructive nature.

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?

Extremely concise at two words plus 'Destructive'. Every word serves a purpose, but it could be slightly more structured (e.g., a full sentence). Still, no wasted space.

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?

For a simple delete tool with clear annotations and full schema, the description is minimally adequate. It lacks details about error states (e.g., page not found) and consequences, but overall it is not incomplete.

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 no extra parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., 'by path' is already in the path property description).

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 action ('Delete'), the resource ('a wiki page'), and the method ('by path'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like ado_get_wiki_page or ado_create_wiki_page.

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 word 'Destructive' hints at its nature but does not provide explicit usage context.

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

Deploy Server