arcade-azure-devops-mcp

AzureDevops_AddWorkItemComment

AzureDevops_AddWorkItemComment

Post a comment to an Azure DevOps work item to provide updates or feedback. Specify the project, work item ID, and comment text.

Instructions

Add a comment to a work item.

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": {
      "project": "<project>",
      "work_item_id": "<work_item_id>",
      "text": "<text>"
    },
    "name": "AzureDevops_AddWorkItemComment"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`text`	Yes	Comment text (supports HTML)
`project`	Yes	Project name or ID
`work_item_id`	Yes	Work item ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 9, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the action without mentioning permissions, side effects, reversibility, or return behavior, which is insufficient for a write operation.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero redundant content. It communicates the purpose immediately without any filler.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description should provide more context about return values or side effects. It is too minimal for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior beyond the basic action.

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?

The input schema covers all three parameters with clear descriptions (text, project, work_item_id), so baseline is 3. The description itself adds no extra parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('Add') and a clear resource ('a comment to a work item'), which directly distinguishes it from siblings like GetWorkItem and UpdateWorkItem. It leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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, such as UpdateWorkItem or CreateWorkItem. There are no context clues, prerequisites, or exclusions mentioned.

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