update_sprintsFull update (PUT) of a sprint — every writable field required. Prefer the partial-update tool for small edits such as adjusting dates. 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?
The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations: 'every writable field required' makes the PUT semantics and missing-field implications clear, and the advice to return the app_url deep link to the user is an actionable behavioral guideline. No contradiction with annotations (idempotentHint, non-destructive) exists.
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?
Three concise, front-loaded sentences. The first states the core function, the second provides usage guidance, and the third adds a valuable user-facing tip. Every sentence earns its place with zero 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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (nested body object, many fields) and no output schema, the description does well: it covers purpose, usage guidance, and a response-related hint (app_url). However, it does not describe the full return value or potential error cases, leaving a minor gap for such a full-replacement operation.
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 description does not enumerate individual parameters (0% schema coverage from description), but it does add important semantic context: the PUT method and that every writable field is required. This goes beyond just repeating the schema, but leaves field-level meaning (e.g., 'goal', 'review_notes') to be inferred from their names.
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 this is a 'Full update (PUT) of a sprint' — a specific verb (replace/update) and resource (sprint). It distinguishes itself from the partial-update sibling by explicitly contrasting with it, satisfying the 'distinguishes from siblings' criterion.
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 tells when NOT to use this tool: 'Prefer the partial-update tool for small edits such as adjusting dates.' This is a clear alternative referral, giving the agent a rule of thumb for tool selection.
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.