jira-mcp-server

update_sprint_state

Change a sprint's state to active or closed by specifying the sprint ID and target state, starting or completing sprints as needed.

Instructions

Change the state of a sprint (e.g., start or complete)

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>",
      "state": "<state>"
    },
    "name": "update_sprint_state"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`state`	Yes	The new state
`sprintId`	Yes	The ID of the sprint

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 8, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing side effects. It only states 'Change the state' without explaining consequences (e.g., whether closing completes the sprint, if there are valid transitions, or if any related entities are affected). This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the verb and object. It includes helpful examples without any fluff, making it easy to scan.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple two-parameter tool, the description and schema together cover the essential purpose and parameters. However, the lack of annotations and absence of usage/behavioral caveats prevent a perfect score; it would be more complete with notes on transition validity or side effects.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so parameters are documented. The description adds value by mapping the enum values to real-world actions ('active'=start, 'closed'=complete), which is not in the schema. However, it does not add meaning for sprintId beyond the schema's description.

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 function with a specific verb ('Change') and resource ('state of a sprint'), and provides concrete examples ('start or complete'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_sprint, which presumably handles other sprint fields.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or contrast with update_sprint, which could overlap. The usage context is only implied by the description.

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