ado-mcp

ado_delete_work_item

Destructive

Remove a work item from Azure DevOps. By default moves to recycle bin; use destroy option for permanent deletion.

Instructions

Delete a work item (recycle bin by default; destroy=true is permanent). 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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "ado_delete_work_item"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Work item ID
`destroy`	No	Permanently destroy instead of recycling (default false)
`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

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already provide destructiveHint: true. The description adds context about recycle bin vs permanent deletion, which goes beyond the annotation. No contradictions.

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?

Two sentences, minimal and front-loaded. First sentence gives the core action, second adds critical detail. No waste.

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, the description lacks information about return values or success confirmation. For a delete operation, it could be more complete by mentioning expected response or authorization requirements. Adequate but not fully complete.

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?

Input schema covers 100% parameter descriptions. The description does not add new semantics beyond the schema; it reiterates the destroy flag behavior already documented. Baseline 3 for near-complete schema coverage.

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 'Delete a work item' with specific behavior detail (recycle bin by default, permanent with destroy=true). This distinguishes it clearly from sibling tools like update or get work items.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage for deletion and notes the destroy flag, but does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives (e.g., update work item) or mention prerequisites like permissions. Usage guidance is implied but not comprehensive.

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

Deploy Server