Create a new sprint for a project. Automatically migrates non-completed tasks (todo/in_progress) from the previous sprint. On first use, creates Sprint 0 (Backlog) for existing tasks and Sprint 1 as the active sprint.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| goal | No | Sprint goal (optional) | |
| name | No | Sprint name (default: 'Sprint N') | |
| project_id | No | Project ID (alternative to project_name) | |
| project_name | No | Project name |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses key non-obvious traits: automatic migration of non-completed tasks from the previous sprint and the special first-use initialization (Sprint 0/1). However, it does not mention prerequisites like requiring exactly one of project_id/project_name, or any side effects on the previous sprint.
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 compact, with two sentences that first state the core action and then the behavioral details. No unnecessary words or repetition of schema information.
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 is fairly complete for a simple creation tool but fails to explicitly state that a project must be identified via project_id or project_name, and how the tool resolves when both or neither are provided. Given the optional schema, this is a notable gap.
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 input schema provides descriptions for all four parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing beyond the schema regarding parameter usage, selection, or validation.
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 action ('Create a new sprint') and the target ('for a project'), and adds a distinguishing behavior (task migration) that differentiates it from sibling tools like move_task_to_sprint. The verb and resource are specific and unambiguous.
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 implies usage context through the migration behavior but does not explicitly explain when to choose this over alternatives such as move_task_to_sprint or list_sprints. No exclusions or when-not guidance is provided beyond the inherent behavior.
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 have distinct resource+action pairs (e.g., create_task vs update_task vs delete_task), but the large number of list/get/search tools creates some potential confusion, especially between get_context, search_entities, and find_documents. Descriptions are detailed and help, but the volume makes navigation less clear.
The majority of tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (create_, delete_, list_, update_, etc.), with clear prefixes like add/remove and link/unlink. Deviations like 'whoami', 'find_documents' vs 'search_entities', and 'setup_organization' prevent a perfect score.
62 tools is far beyond the typical MCP server scope and overwhelms agents with too many choices. Even if each tool is individually useful, the sheer count makes it difficult for an agent to efficiently select the right tool, increasing the likelihood of misselection.
The domain is well covered for projects, tasks, teams, sessions, and notifications, but there are notable gaps: no update_document, no get_task (only list/update/delete), no get_user, no reject_invite, and sprint management lacks update/delete operations. Core CRUD is present for many entities, but not all.
