list_sprint_lanesList the board lanes (task placements in columns) of a sprint. Pass sprint_id to scope to one sprint; lanes missing for tasks already in the sprint are backfilled automatically. This is the sprint kanban board.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, establishing a safe read operation. The description adds useful behavioral context: the auto-backfill of missing lanes for tasks already in the sprint and the notion of a kanban board. It does not contradict the annotations, and it gives insight beyond the structured fields.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three short sentences, each earning its place: the first states the verb and resource, the second explains scoping and a notable behavior, the third provides a helpful metaphor. It is front-loaded with the essential information and contains no fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the core purpose and sprint_id scoping, and the annotations cover safety, reducing the burden. However, it leaves a meaningful gap: since `sprint_id` is optional in the schema, the agent is not told what happens if it is omitted, nor is the `task_id` filter mentioned. Without an output schema, a bit more on return shape or default behavior would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has a single `body` parameter with nested optional fields, but top-level schema description coverage is 0%. The description explains only `sprint_id` (to scope the list) and does not mention `task_id`, `page`, or `page_size`. This leaves the agent to infer or guess the meaning of these parameters, especially `task_id`, which has no schema description either.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List') and resource ('board lanes of a sprint'), and the parenthetical '(task placements in columns)' plus 'This is the sprint kanban board' distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list_sprints or list_tasks. The core purpose is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives explicit usage guidance by instructing to pass `sprint_id` to scope to one sprint. It lacks an explicit alternative comparison (e.g., versus retrieve_sprint_lanes) or what happens without sprint_id, but the context is clear enough for most selection scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools are clearly scoped to a specific resource and action, but a few near-overlapping pairs (e.g., list_attachments vs list_taskattachments, create_tasktags vs add_tag_tasks) could cause misselection without close reading. Descriptions are detailed enough to resolve most ambiguity.
The dominant verb_noun CRUD pattern (create_, list_, retrieve_, update_, partial_update_, destroy_) is consistent and predictable. However, non-standard pluralizations (companys, resumeentrys, taskdependencys) and a handful of irregular names (task_assign_user, move_relate_to_tasks) introduce minor inconsistencies.
With 83 tools, this server is far beyond a well-scoped MCP surface, even for a feature-complete project management suite. The sheer volume will overwhelm agents and make selection inefficient, clearly falling into the extreme-mismatch range.
The toolset provides thorough lifecycle coverage across companies, projects, tasks, sprints, attachments, comments, dependencies, tags, reminders, resume entries, tickets, and users. Missing operations like company deletion or task-attachment creation appear intentional and are worked around via existing tools.