arcade-azure-devops-mcp

AzureDevops_CreateWorkItem

AzureDevops_CreateWorkItem

Create an Azure DevOps work item by specifying project, type, title, and optional details like description, priority, assignment, and state.

Instructions

Create a new 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_type": "<work_item_type>",
      "title": "<title>"
    },
    "name": "AzureDevops_CreateWorkItem"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`state`	No	Initial state of the work item
`title`	Yes	Title of the work item
`project`	Yes	Project name or ID
`priority`	No	Priority (1-4, where 1 is highest)
`area_path`	No	Area path for the work item
`assigned_to`	No	User to assign the work item to
`description`	No	Description/details of the work item
`iteration_path`	No	Iteration path for the work item
`work_item_type`	Yes	Work item type (e.g., Task, Bug, User Story)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 9, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Create a new work item,' with no explanation of side effects, required permissions, state changes, or what occurs with the provided fields. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is very concise (one sentence), but it is under-specified for a tool with 9 parameters and no other documentation. While it is not verbose, it is not appropriately sized for the complexity, bordering on under-specification rather than efficient conciseness.

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?

Given the tool has 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is highly incomplete. It doesn't explain the work item domain, the significance of required fields, or the expected return value. The schema provides structural info, but the description fails to give necessary context for correct usage.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 9 parameters. The description adds no parameter information, but the schema already provides adequate semantics. Per the baseline rule, a score of 3 is appropriate when schema covers all parameters.

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 states 'Create a new work item' which clearly identifies the verb (create) and resource (work item). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like UpdateWorkItem or GetWorkItem, but the verb alone distinguishes it. The description is clear but adds no extra context beyond the tool name.

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 any prerequisites, exclusions, or relationship to other work item operations. There is no implied context beyond the name.

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