ado-mcp

ado_work_item_search

Read-only

Find work items by performing full-text searches across Azure DevOps projects, with support for result limits and project filtering.

Instructions

Full-text search across work items.

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": {
      "searchText": "<searchText>"
    },
    "name": "ado_work_item_search"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`top`	No	Max results (default 50)
`skip`	No
`project`	No	Limit to a project
`searchText`	Yes	Search query text

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 30, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The description adds no behavioral details beyond what the readOnlyHint annotation already provides. It does not discuss pagination, result limits, or other effects. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Description is a single short sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and perfectly proportional to the tool's simplicity.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple search tool with no output schema, the description is mostly complete. However, given the numerous sibling search tools, it could briefly mention that this uses Azure DevOps full-text search syntax or specify that results are work items (implied by the name).

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 75% (3 of 4 parameters have descriptions). The description adds no parameter-level details; the schema suffices for basic understanding. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Description clearly states 'Full-text search across work items', identifying the verb (search) and resource (work items). It distinguishes from sibling tools like ado_get_work_item and ado_query_work_items by specifying 'full-text' as opposed to ID-based or WIQL queries.

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 text-based queries but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like ado_query_work_items or ado_get_work_items. No exclusions or context examples are provided.

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

Deploy Server