start_sprintsTransition a sprint from PLANNED to ACTIVE. Fails if the sprint is not PLANNED or if another sprint is already ACTIVE in the same project (only one active sprint per project). 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| kwargs | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing specific failure conditions (sprint not PLANNED or another ACTIVE sprint) and instructing on how to handle the app_url deep link in user-facing responses. This adds meaningful behavioral context that annotations alone do not provide.
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 concise and well-structured: it opens with the core action, then specifies conditions and output guidance in three tight sentences. No redundancy or filler, making it easy for an agent to parse.
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?
Despite having no output schema, the description covers all operational essentials: the state transition, failure cases, and how to present the deep link. This is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly and handle the response appropriately.
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 describes pk as 'The primary key of the resource' with 0% coverage from the description. The description never explicitly states that pk should be the sprint's identifier or how to provide it. Since the description carries the burden for parameter meaning, this is a notable gap.
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 identifies the tool's action: 'Transition a sprint from PLANNED to ACTIVE.' This specific verb-resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like close_sprints (which transitions to CLOSED) and create_sprints (which creates a new sprint). The mention of failure conditions further clarifies its unique role.
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 the tool: when you want to start a sprint (transition from PLANNED to ACTIVE). It also gives important constraints (fails if not PLANNED or another ACTIVE sprint exists). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a perfect 5.
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.