Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ado-mcp

ado-mcp

by og-mcp
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

ado_get_test_plan

Read-only

Retrieve a specific test plan from Azure DevOps by providing its unique ID. Access plan details with a single request.

Instructions

Get a single test plan by ID.

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": {
      "planId": "<planId>"
    },
    "name": "ado_get_test_plan"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
planIdYesTest plan ID
projectNoProject name or ID (defaults to ADO_DEFAULT_PROJECT)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

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 readOnlyHint=true annotation, confirming a safe read operation. However, it adds no additional behavioral context such as rate limits, authentication requirements, or error handling. Since annotations cover the safety profile, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded. Every word contributes to the core purpose. It is not verbose, though it lacks additional structure like bullet points or examples, which are not needed for such a simple tool.

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 the tool's simplicity (get a single item by ID), the basic description is adequate but not fully complete. There is no output schema, so the agent lacks information about the return format. The description could briefly mention what fields are returned, but it's not critically missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the input schema already provides clear descriptions for both parameters (planId and project). The tool description does not add any extra meaning beyond what the schema offers, so a baseline score of 3 is given.

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', the resource 'test plan', and the identifier 'by ID'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like ado_list_test_plans (which lists multiple) and ado_create_test_plan.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ado_list_test_plans. There is no mention of prerequisites or context, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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