Skip to main content
Glama

BoardMark

by ai.boardmark
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Create a sprint (project_admin; also members when the project's `sprint_control` is `members`, D141)

create_sprint

Create a sprint (project_admin; also members when the project's sprint_control is members, D141).

Requires project_admin, or any member (not a viewer) when the project's sprint_control is members (see get_project); otherwise forbidden.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
endYesCalendar date `YYYY-MM-DD` (Asia/Bangkok).
goalNo
nameYes
startYesCalendar date `YYYY-MM-DD` (Asia/Bangkok).
reasonNoSpec D144: why you make this change (≤ 200 characters). Optional, but give it when you act as an agent account — it is shown in the agent's run log ("moved KJ-12 To Do → In Progress because <reason>"). board-mcp records it in `agent.run`; board-core / board-files accept it and ignore it (it never changes the file, the version or the history).
project_keyYesProject key, e.g. `KJ`. 2–10 chars, uppercase letters and digits, starts with a letter.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / reason
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Spec D144: why you make this change (≤ 200 characters). Optional, but give it when you act as an agent account — it is shown in the agent's run log (\"moved KJ-12 To Do → In Progress because <reason>\"). board-mcp records it in `agent.run`; board-core / board-files accept it and ignore it (it never changes the file, the version or the history).",
+  "maxLength": 200,
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the description is not carrying the safety profile. What it does add is genuinely useful: the exact permission model and the get_project dependency. It does not mention what happens on a duplicate sprint name, whether the sprint starts immediately, or what is returned — gaps that matter for a non-idempotent mutation.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The first sentence repeats the title verbatim, including the D141 reference, and the second sentence restates the same permission rule in slightly more detail. Roughly half the text is duplication rather than new information.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and six parameters, the definition covers the authorization story well and points to get_project for the deciding condition. It omits what the call creates/returns (sprint id?), duplicate handling, and any constraint linking start and end, which an agent needs to invoke it safely.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 67%; project_key, start, end and reason carry descriptions, while name and goal have only constraints. The description says nothing about any parameter — no field semantics, no date-range or ordering rule (e.g. whether end must be after start), no note that goal is optional. It adds zero meaning beyond the schema.

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 first sentence names a specific verb and resource ("Create a sprint") and adds an authorization scope, which is enough to separate it from siblings such as close_sprint, update_sprint, list_sprints and move_to_sprint. It never explicitly contrasts with those siblings, but the resource is unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

"Requires project_admin, or any member (not a viewer) when the project's `sprint_control` is `members` (see get_project); otherwise forbidden" tells the agent when it is allowed to call, and points at get_project to resolve the condition. It gives no guidance on when to create a new sprint versus reusing one from list_sprints, nor any prerequisite ordering.

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

All BoardMark toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Shareable, User-Owned Context BackendPeople, applications, and agents read, write, and coordinate together in one context lake. Reach it over MCP, a CLI, a Python SDK, or REST.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources