cycle_progressReturn scope, started, completed and cancelled counts for a sprint, the same totals in points, what was added or removed while it ran, and a day by day burn up series carrying both the scope and the completed work.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cycle | Yes | Sprint name, number, id, or "active". |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by specifying the exact output structure (counts, points, changes, burn-up series), giving the agent a clear expectation of what data will be returned without needing an output schema.
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 a single, dense sentence that front-loads the purpose and lists the returned data concisely. It is not overly long or verbose, though it could be broken into a list for readability. Overall, it is efficient and well-structured.
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?
With no output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining return values. It does so thoroughly: counts, points totals, added/removed items, and a day-by-day burn-up series. It covers the key aspects an agent needs to know to call and interpret the tool correctly.
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 describes the only parameter 'cycle' with 'Sprint name, number, id, or "active"' (100% coverage). The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter. Per the rubric, with high schema coverage, the baseline score is 3, and the description does not go beyond it.
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 states a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('sprint progress'), and enumerates the exact data provided: scope, started, completed, cancelled counts, points totals, additions/removals, and a burn-up series. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like project_progress or active_cycle, which have different focuses.
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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage from the title 'Get sprint progress', but there is no guidance on when this is preferable to project_progress, list_cycles, or get_analytics_overview. No exclusions or alternative conditions are mentioned.
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.