ado-mcp

ado_get_sprint_work_items

Read-only

Retrieve work items assigned to a sprint by providing the iteration ID. Optionally specify team and project to narrow results.

Instructions

Get the work items assigned to a sprint (iteration).

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": {
      "iterationId": "<iterationId>"
    },
    "name": "ado_get_sprint_work_items"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`team`	No	Team name (defaults to "<project> Team")
`project`	No	Project name or ID (defaults to ADO_DEFAULT_PROJECT)
`iterationId`	Yes	Iteration (sprint) ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 30, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's 'Get' aligns with that. However, the description adds no further behavioral context such as pagination, error handling, or permissions. With annotations present, the description does not contradict but adds minimal value.

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?

The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded and contains no fluff. Every word is necessary and contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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?

The tool has 3 parameters all documented but no output schema. The description does not explain the return format or behavior for missing iterations. While simple, it leaves the agent without full context on what to expect.

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%, meaning all parameters are documented in the schema. The description does not elaborate on parameters beyond the schema's definitions. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already provides meaning.

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 'Get' and the resource 'work items assigned to a sprint (iteration)'. It uniquely identifies the tool's function among siblings like `ado_get_work_item` (single work item) and `ado_list_sprints` (list sprints).

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 retrieving sprint work items but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this over alternatives or prerequisites. The context 'assigned to a sprint' is clear but lacks comparative direction.

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

Deploy Server