Skip to main content
Glama

ado_add_comment

Add a comment or discussion entry to an Azure DevOps work item using Markdown formatting for clear documentation and collaboration.

Instructions

Agrega un comentario/entrada de discusión a un Work Item. Soporta formato Markdown.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesID del Work Item
commentYesTexto del comentario (soporta Markdown)

Implementation Reference

  • The handler for the 'ado_add_comment' MCP tool. It uses the Azure DevOps Work Item Tracking API to update the 'System.History' field of a work item.
    async ({ id, comment }) => {
      const api = await getWitApi();
    
      // Usar System.History para agregar comentario
      const patchDocument: VSSInterfaces.JsonPatchOperation[] = [
        {
          op: VSSInterfaces.Operation.Add,
          path: "/fields/System.History",
          value: comment,
        },
      ];
    
      await api.updateWorkItem(null, patchDocument, id);
    
      return {
        content: [
          {
            type: "text",
            text: `Comentario agregado exitosamente al Work Item #${id}`,
          },
        ],
  • src/index.ts:698-704 (registration)
    The registration of the 'ado_add_comment' tool, including its schema definition.
    server.tool(
      "ado_add_comment",
      "Agrega un comentario/entrada de discusión a un Work Item. Soporta formato Markdown.",
      {
        id: z.number().describe("ID del Work Item"),
        comment: z.string().describe("Texto del comentario (soporta Markdown)"),
      },
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions Markdown support but doesn't cover critical aspects: whether this is a write operation (implied by 'Agrega'), permission requirements, rate limits, response format, or whether comments are editable/deletable after creation. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes only essential additional detail (Markdown support). Every word earns its place, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after invocation (e.g., success confirmation, error handling), nor does it cover behavioral aspects like permissions or side effects. Given the complexity of adding comments to a work item system, more context is needed for safe and effective use.

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%, with both parameters clearly documented in the schema (ID del Work Item, Texto del comentario). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema—it confirms Markdown support for the comment parameter, which is already implied in the schema description. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Agrega un comentario/entrada de discusión') and resource ('a un Work Item'), with specific mention of Markdown support. It distinguishes from siblings like ado_create_work_item or ado_update_work_item by focusing on comment addition rather than work item creation/modification. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from ado_get_comments, which is a related but inverse operation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing work item ID), when not to use it, or direct alternatives like using ado_update_work_item for other modifications. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/soulberto/mcp-azure'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server