Skip to main content
Glama

ado_get_comments

Retrieve discussion history and comments from Azure DevOps work items to track conversations and decisions.

Instructions

Obtiene los comentarios/historial de discusión de un Work Item

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesID del Work Item
topNoNúmero máximo de comentarios a obtener (por defecto 10)

Implementation Reference

  • src/index.ts:731-738 (registration)
    Registration of the ado_get_comments tool.
    server.tool(
      "ado_get_comments",
      "Obtiene los comentarios/historial de discusión de un Work Item",
      {
        id: z.number().describe("ID del Work Item"),
        top: z.number().optional().describe("Número máximo de comentarios a obtener (por defecto 10)"),
      },
      async ({ id, top = 10 }) => {
  • Handler function for ado_get_comments tool which fetches comments from Azure DevOps.
      async ({ id, top = 10 }) => {
        const api = await getWitApi();
    
        const comments = await api.getComments(currentProject, id, top);
    
        if (!comments.comments || comments.comments.length === 0) {
          return {
            content: [
              {
                type: "text",
                text: `No hay comentarios en el Work Item #${id}`,
              },
            ],
          };
        }
    
        const result = comments.comments
          .map((comment) => {
            const author = comment.createdBy?.displayName || "Desconocido";
            const date = comment.createdDate
              ? new Date(comment.createdDate).toLocaleString()
              : "Fecha desconocida";
            const text = comment.text || "(sin contenido)";
            return `**${author}** - ${date}\n${text}\n`;
          })
          .join("\n---\n");
    
        return {
          content: [
            {
              type: "text",
              text: `Comentarios del Work Item #${id}:\n\n${result}`,
            },
          ],
        };
      }
    );
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 only states what the tool does ('gets comments/discussion history') but doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, how results are structured, or if there are rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 that gets straight to the point with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loads the essential information about what the tool does.

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?

For a simple retrieval tool with good schema coverage but no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states the basic purpose but lacks important contextual information about the tool's behavior, output format, and relationship to sibling tools. The absence of output schema means the description should ideally provide more guidance about what gets returned.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any additional semantic context about the parameters beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the parameter documentation work.

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 ('Obtiene' - gets) and resource ('comentarios/historial de discusión de un Work Item'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'ado_get_work_item' or 'ado_add_comment', which is why it doesn't reach a score of 5.

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. There's no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it differs from related tools like 'ado_get_work_item' (which might include comments) or 'ado_add_comment' (which adds comments).

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