move_sprint_lanesMove a sprint board lane (a task) to a different board column. Pass project_task_status_id (the target column, which must belong to the lane's sprint project) or null to park it in the synthetic 'Incoming' column. Lanes of closed sprints cannot be moved.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | No | ||
| kwargs | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Adds meaningful behavioral constraints beyond annotations: the target column must belong to the lane's sprint project, null parks in synthetic 'Incoming', and closed sprints are prohibited. No contradiction with readOnly/destructive hints since this is 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, fully front-loaded with the main action, and every clause carries necessary information. No filler or repeated schema details beyond the key context.
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?
Given two parameters, no output schema, and nested body, the description fully covers the input semantics, edge cases (null), and constraints (closed sprints). There is no missing important information for selecting/invoking the tool.
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 itself provides descriptions for both parameters, and the description reinforces the meaning of project_task_status_id, specifically the null behavior and ownership requirement. Adds value by explaining the semantic relationship between param and project.
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 verb 'Move' and the resource 'sprint board lane (a task)' to a 'different board column'. It distinguishes from siblings like move_to_project_tasks by focusing on sprint lanes specifically, and clarifies the lane is a task.
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?
Provides clear usage context: pass project_task_status_id for a target column or null for 'Incoming', and notes closed sprints cannot be moved. Does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the when-to-use is clearly implied by the resource and action.
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.