ado-mcp

ado_get_team_capacity

Read-only

Retrieve a team's available capacity for a specified sprint iteration to aid in workload planning.

Instructions

Get a team's capacity for 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_team_capacity"
  }
}

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

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The description is consistent with the readOnlyHint annotation, but does not elaborate on what 'capacity' includes (e.g., per-person or total, units). The annotation already covers read-only nature, so the description adds minimal behavioral context.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, perfectly concise for a simple read operation.

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?

For a tool with no output schema, the description should at least hint at the return format (e.g., 'returns list of team member capacities'). The brief description is insufficient to fully understand the tool's output, making it 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so each parameter is documented. The tool description does not add additional semantics beyond the schema's field descriptions, meeting the baseline expectation.

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 tool retrieves a team's capacity for a sprint, using specific verb 'Get' and resource 'team's capacity'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'ado_list_sprints' and 'ado_get_sprint_work_items' by focusing on capacity data.

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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool, prerequisites (e.g., the sprint must exist), or alternatives. This leaves the agent without context for proper selection.

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

Deploy Server