idea-base-mcp-server

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

close_sprint

Finalize a sprint by moving unfinished work into the next or specified open sprint, recording commitments in the ledger, and keeping completed tasks attached. Closing is irreversible.

Instructions

Close a sprint. Unfinished work moves into the next sprint and its carry count increments (unless the product's cadence has carry-over off, in which case it is released); finished work stays attached. Every task held is written to the commitment ledger first, so what the sprint committed to survives the carry. This is an action, not a status edit — closing is irreversible.

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": {
      "sprint_id": "<sprint_id>"
    },
    "name": "close_sprint"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`sprint_id`	Yes	The sprint to close
`carry_to_sprint_id`	No	Optional explicit destination for unfinished work. Must be an open sprint in the same product; otherwise the next sprint is used or opened.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv2.7.0Nov 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the carry-over behavior, the cadence-dependent exception (carry-over off means release instead), that finished work stays attached, and that the ledger is written before the move. It does not mention required permissions, preconditions (e.g., sprint must be open), or what the call returns.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The opening sentence is front-loaded and the consequences follow in a logical order: carry behavior, cadence exception, ledger, irreversibility. The ledger sentence adds meaningful context rather than filler, though the parenthetical about cadence is slightly dense.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a two-parameter irreversible mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the effects on unfinished and finished work, the cadence-dependent branch, and the durability guarantee. An agent can call this correctly without further context.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, and the schema text already explains both sprint_id and carry_to_sprint_id, including the 'open sprint in the same product' constraint and fallback behavior. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 first sentence names a specific verb and resource ('Close a sprint') with no ambiguity, and no sibling tool performs that action. The rest of the description sharpens the scope by describing the exact state transition rather than a generic status change.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It clearly frames the use case (when a sprint ends and work must move forward) and explicitly warns against treating this as a status edit, with the irreversibility caveat. It stops short of naming concrete alternatives or preconditions, such as using update_task_status for a simple status change.

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