move_to_sprint_tasksMove one or more tasks (and all their descendants) into a sprint, or back to the product backlog. Pass task_ids (non-empty list, all in the same project) and sprint_id (null = backlog). Closed sprints are rejected. Returns moved_count and affected_ids.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds valuable behavioral details beyond annotations: it explains that descendants move automatically, closed sprints are rejected, and the return values are moved_count and affected_ids. Since annotations are neutral (all false), the description carries the transparency burden and does so effectively.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence adds useful information: scope, parameter meaning, constraints, and return values. No fluff or repetition.
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 the tool's simplicity (one nested parameter, no output schema), the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, parameter semantics, constraints, and return values. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without additional information.
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?
With schema description coverage at 0% (top-level body param lacks description), the tool description compensates fully by explaining task_ids (non-empty, same project) and sprint_id (null = backlog). It adds constraints not present in the schema (same project, non-empty), making parameter semantics extremely clear.
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 tool moves tasks into a sprint or back to the backlog, with the verb 'move' and specific resource 'tasks' plus 'sprint'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like move_to_project_tasks by explicitly mentioning sprint/backlog context and descendant behavior.
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 provides clear context for when to use this tool (moving tasks to a sprint or backlog) and includes a constraint (closed sprints rejected). It doesn't explicitly compare with alternatives, but the sprint-specific context naturally differentiates it from move_to_project_tasks.
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.