jira-mcp-server

create_sprint

Create a new sprint on a specified board, providing name, goal, and start/end dates to organize and plan upcoming work.

Instructions

Create a new sprint on a board

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "name": "<name>",
      "originBoardId": "<originBoardId>"
    },
    "name": "create_sprint"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`goal`	No	Sprint goal
`name`	Yes	Sprint name
`endDate`	No	ISO 8601 date time
`startDate`	No	ISO 8601 date time
`originBoardId`	Yes	ID of the board where the sprint originates

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 8, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior1/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Create a new sprint on a board,' which conveys no side effects, permissions, idempotency, error conditions, or response format. This is insufficient for a mutating operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence that is direct and free of unnecessary detail. It gets straight to the point, achieving conciseness without sacrificing the core message.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description is too sparse for a write operation with no annotations and no output schema. It does not explain the relationship to the board, potential side effects, or expected response, leaving the agent without enough context to use the tool confidently.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema provides detailed descriptions for all 5 parameters with 100% schema coverage, so the description adds no additional parameter meaning. The baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema already carries the semantic weight.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific action (create) and target resource (sprint on a board). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like update_sprint and delete_sprints by indicating this is for creating a new sprint.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, lacks prerequisites (e.g., board existence), and does not mention any exclusions or when not to use it. This is a clear gap for a tool that depends on board context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.