partial_update_sprintsPartial update (PATCH) of a sprint — send only the fields to change (e.g. name or planned dates). Lifecycle transitions use the dedicated start/close tools, not this one. Each sprint carries app_url, a deep link straight to it in the ProWoDo web app — give it to the user instead of describing where to click.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | ||
| kwargs | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are all false, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It adds useful context: PATCH semantics, the exclusion of lifecycle transitions, and the app_url existence. However, it doesn't mention auth, side effects, or how omitted fields behave. More importantly, the claim 'send only the fields to change' conflicts with the schema's required body fields (project_id, name, start_date, end_date), which undermines transparency about actual behavior.
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, each earning its place: the core PATCH definition with examples, the lifecycle-transition exclusion, and the actionable app_url guidance. It is front-loaded and contains no filler.
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 key usage context: partial update, allowed field categories, lifecycle exclusions, and a concrete user-facing action. However, with no output schema, no auth/error/side-effect information, and the conflicting required-field representation, it leaves gaps that could lead to incorrect invocation. It is adequate but not fully complete.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only gives examples like 'name or planned dates' without mapping to exact parameter names. The schema itself describes date format and project_id, but many fields (goal, planning_notes, review_notes) lack guidance. The 'send only fields to change' assertion contradicts the body schema's required fields, making it unclear whether all required body fields must be supplied despite the partial-update intent.
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 opens with 'Partial update (PATCH) of a sprint', giving a specific verb, HTTP method, and resource. It clearly distinguishes this from lifecycle transition tools by stating 'Lifecycle transitions use the dedicated start/close tools, not this one.' This is far more specific than the generic title 'Update a sprint' and effectively differentiates it from sibling tools.
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 explicitly states when to use this tool: to send only fields to change, and when not to use it: for lifecycle transitions, pointing to 'dedicated start/close tools.' It also provides user-facing guidance about the app_url deep link, telling the agent to give it to the user. This is clear, actionable usage guidance.
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.