Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
tfs-mcp-server

tfs-mcp-server

by rickey-cpu
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

tfs_add_work_item_comment

Add a comment to a TFS work item's history by providing its ID and the comment text. This write operation directly updates the work item.

Instructions

Them mot ghi chu (comment) vao truong History cua work item. Day la thao tac GHI DU LIEU len TFS, chi goi khi nguoi dung xac nhan ro rang muon them comment nay.

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>",
      "comment": "<comment>"
    },
    "name": "tfs_add_work_item_comment"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesID work item
commentYesNoi dung comment can them

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Discloses write operation and target field, but without annotations, description carries full burden. Missing details on permissions, idempotency, rate limits, or response format.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with action. No extraneous words; every sentence adds value.

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?

Adequate for a simple two-parameter tool, but lacks behavioral details like success/error handling or permissions. With no annotations, some gaps remain.

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% with basic descriptions. Description adds context that comment goes into History field, but does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond schema.

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 (adding a comment), the target resource (work item's History field), and emphasizes it is a write operation, distinguishing it from sibling read tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly states when to call ('only when user clearly confirms'), providing usage context. Lacks explicit when-not conditions, but sufficient given tool uniqueness among siblings.

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