idea-base-mcp-server

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

get_sprint

Retrieve a sprint's tasks, derived status, counts, and closed-sprint commitment ledger; optionally include eligible candidates and blocked work with reasons.

Instructions

Get one sprint: its tasks with derived status, counts taken from real task rows, and — for a CLOSED sprint — the commitment ledger saying what it committed to and what became of each item. Pass candidates:true to also get the open work that could be pulled in, and the work being held back as blocked (with the reason).

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": "get_sprint"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`sprint_id`	Yes	The sprint to retrieve
`candidates`	No	Also return work eligible to be added, and blocked work held out of it. Default false.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv2.7.0Nov 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the burden and does add real behavior: statuses are derived, counts come from actual task rows rather than stored totals, and the commitment ledger is returned only for CLOSED sprints. It doesn't mention read-only nature, size limits, or pagination for large sprints, which are the remaining behavioral gaps.

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?

One dense sentence, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the return inventory and the optional flag; there is no filler. The em-dash construction and nested clauses make it slightly harder to scan than it needs to be, which keeps it off a 5.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey the return shape and it does: task list with derived status, counts, closed-sprint ledger, and the candidate/blocked extensions. It omits volume or pagination expectations for sprints with many tasks, which is the one thing an agent could still be surprised by.

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%, so both parameters are already documented, including the candidates default of false. The description adds only marginal meaning beyond that ('open work that could be pulled in' and 'held back as blocked (with the reason)'), so the baseline 3 applies rather than a bonus.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Get one sprint') and immediately enumerates what the payload contains: tasks with derived status, counts from real task rows, and for closed sprints a commitment ledger. That scope ('one sprint', by id) also distinguishes it cleanly from the sibling list_sprints without needing to name it.

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?

Usage context is clear: call it to inspect a single sprint, and set candidates:true when you also want pullable open work plus blocked items with reasons. It never states when not to use it or explicitly routes to list_sprints / get_task as alternatives, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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