Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ado-mcp

ado-mcp

by og-mcp
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

ado_get_backlog_work_items

Read-only

Retrieve work items from a specified backlog level for a team in Azure DevOps.

Instructions

Get the work items at a given backlog level for a team.

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": {
      "backlogId": "<backlogId>"
    },
    "name": "ado_get_backlog_work_items"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
teamNoTeam name (defaults to "<project> Team")
projectNoProject name or ID (defaults to ADO_DEFAULT_PROJECT)
backlogIdYesBacklog level ID (from ado_list_backlogs)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

The description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. It omits details like pagination, result format (full work items vs IDs), and any permissions or limitations.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. It is efficient but may be under-specified for complete understanding.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the lack of an output schema and the presence of many similar sibling tools, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what kind of work items are returned or how to interpret the backlog level.

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?

The schema already provides full descriptions for all three parameters, so the tool description adds no extra meaning. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the action 'Get' and the target 'work items at a given backlog level for a team'. It differentiates from sibling tools like ado_get_work_item and ado_get_sprint_work_items by specifying backlog level context. However, it could elaborate on what 'backlog level' means.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ado_get_work_items or ado_query_work_items. There is no mention of when not to use it or any decision criteria.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools