jira-mcp-server

update_sprint

Update Jira sprint details, including name, goal, and start/end dates, to keep project schedules current and accurate.

Instructions

Update sprint details (name, goal, dates)

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": {
      "sprintId": "<sprintId>"
    },
    "name": "update_sprint"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`goal`	No
`name`	No
`endDate`	No
`sprintId`	Yes
`startDate`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 8, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the operation is an update but does not mention whether it overwrites existing fields, validates date formats, or requires specific permissions. The description is too thin to convey any behavioral traits beyond the basic intent.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is a single sentence with a parenthetical, which is front-loaded and has no filler. However, it is under-specified; it is concise to the point of omitting necessary context, so it does not fully earn its place as an adequate specification.

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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain required parameters, expected date formats, return behavior, or side effects, leaving significant gaps for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It names 'name, goal, dates' which maps to most parameters, but it does not explain the format of date strings, that sprintId is required, or any constraints on the fields. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the parameter names.

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 action ('Update') and the resource ('sprint details'), and lists the specific fields affected (name, goal, dates). It distinguishes from sibling tools like update_sprint_state, which targets sprint state rather than details.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of create_sprint for new sprints or update_sprint_state for state changes, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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