Skip to main content
Glama

ado_update_work_item

Update existing Azure DevOps work items by modifying their title, state, assigned user, description, or custom fields to track project progress.

Instructions

Actualiza un Work Item existente en Azure DevOps

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesID del Work Item a actualizar
titleNoNuevo título
stateNoNuevo estado (New, Active, Closed, etc.)
assignedToNoUsuario asignado
descriptionNoNueva descripción
fieldsNoCampos adicionales como objeto {campo: valor}

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function for 'ado_update_work_item', which constructs a patch document based on provided arguments and calls the Azure DevOps API to update the work item.
    async ({ id, title, state, assignedTo, description, fields }) => {
      const api = await getWitApi();
    
      const patchDocument: VSSInterfaces.JsonPatchOperation[] = [];
    
      if (title) {
        patchDocument.push({
          op: VSSInterfaces.Operation.Add,
          path: "/fields/System.Title",
          value: title,
        });
      }
    
      if (state) {
        patchDocument.push({
          op: VSSInterfaces.Operation.Add,
          path: "/fields/System.State",
          value: state,
        });
      }
    
      if (assignedTo) {
        patchDocument.push({
          op: VSSInterfaces.Operation.Add,
          path: "/fields/System.AssignedTo",
          value: assignedTo,
        });
      }
    
      if (description) {
        patchDocument.push({
          op: VSSInterfaces.Operation.Add,
          path: "/fields/System.Description",
          value: description,
        });
      }
    
      if (fields) {
        for (const [field, value] of Object.entries(fields)) {
          patchDocument.push({
            op: VSSInterfaces.Operation.Add,
            path: `/fields/${field}`,
            value: value,
          });
        }
      }
    
      if (patchDocument.length === 0) {
        throw new Error("Debe proporcionar al menos un campo para actualizar");
      }
    
      const workItem = await api.updateWorkItem(
        null,
        patchDocument,
        id
      );
    
      return {
        content: [
          {
            type: "text",
            text: `Work Item actualizado exitosamente:\n${formatWorkItem(workItem)}`,
          },
        ],
      };
  • Input schema for 'ado_update_work_item' using zod to validate id, title, state, assignedTo, description, and custom fields.
    {
      id: z.number().describe("ID del Work Item a actualizar"),
      title: z.string().optional().describe("Nuevo título"),
      state: z
        .string()
        .optional()
        .describe("Nuevo estado (New, Active, Closed, etc.)"),
      assignedTo: z.string().optional().describe("Usuario asignado"),
      description: z.string().optional().describe("Nueva descripción"),
      fields: z
        .record(z.string(), z.string())
        .optional()
        .describe("Campos adicionales como objeto {campo: valor}"),
    },
  • src/index.ts:529-531 (registration)
    Registration of the 'ado_update_work_item' tool with the MCP server.
    server.tool(
      "ado_update_work_item",
      "Actualiza un Work Item existente en Azure DevOps",
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 states this is an update operation but doesn't mention permission requirements, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens to unspecified fields. For a mutation tool with 6 parameters and no 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 in Spanish that directly states the tool's purpose. There's zero wasted language, and it's appropriately sized for what it communicates. The structure is front-loaded with the essential information.

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 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like permissions, side effects, or response format. Given the complexity and lack of structured coverage elsewhere, the description should provide more context about how the update operation works.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate coverage through the schema alone, with no value added by the description.

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 verb ('Actualiza' - Update) and resource ('un Work Item existente en Azure DevOps'), making the purpose specific. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'ado_create_work_item' (create vs update) or mention that it modifies existing items rather than creating new ones, which would be helpful for sibling differentiation.

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 (e.g., for creating new items), or refer to sibling tools like 'ado_create_work_item' for creation scenarios. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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