ado-mcp

ado_link_work_items

Link two Azure DevOps work items as parent, child, related, duplicate, successor, or predecessor.

Instructions

Link two work items (parent/child/related/duplicate/successor/predecessor or a raw link ref).

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>",
      "targetId": "<targetId>",
      "linkType": "<linkType>"
    },
    "name": "ado_link_work_items"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Source work item ID
`comment`	No
`project`	No	Project name or ID (defaults to ADO_DEFAULT_PROJECT)
`linkType`	Yes	parent \| child \| related \| duplicate \| duplicate-of \| successor \| predecessor, or a raw link ref name
`targetId`	Yes	Target work item ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 30, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the basic action without disclosing side effects, idempotency, or whether links can be updated/deleted. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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, well-structured sentence with key information front-loaded. It is concise with no wasted words.

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 annotations and output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain the effect of linking (e.g., whether it creates or replaces links), nor does it provide context about project defaulting or required permissions.

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 80%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond listing link types, which is already in the schema's linkType description.

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 action ('Link two work items') and lists specific link types (parent/child/related/duplicate/successor/predecessor or raw link ref), distinguishing it from sibling tools.

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 by listing link types but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor does it provide prerequisites or exclusions.

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

Deploy Server