idea-base-mcp-server

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

remove_tasks_from_sprint

Remove specified tasks from a sprint while keeping the tasks themselves unchanged. Detach up to 100 task IDs from a sprint's time box without altering the work items.

Instructions

Take tasks out of a sprint. The tasks themselves are untouched — the sprint is the time box, not the owner of the work.

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>",
      "task_ids": "<task_ids>"
    },
    "name": "remove_tasks_from_sprint"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`task_ids`	Yes	Task ids to remove (max 100)
`sprint_id`	Yes	The sprint to remove from

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv2.7.0Nov 6, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does add an important consequence: the tasks themselves are untouched and the sprint is only a time box. However, it does not state permissions, reversibility, error behavior, or what happens to the sprint. This is useful but incomplete for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 two short sentences with zero waste. The operational clarification is front-loaded after the core action and directly addresses the main ambiguity an agent might have.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple two-parameter removal tool, the description covers the core action and the key side effect that tasks are not deleted. Still, with no annotations and no output schema, it leaves some gaps around return behavior and operational constraints.

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 description coverage is 100%, so sprint_id and task_ids are already documented. The description adds no details about ID formats, batch limits beyond what the schema says, or how task IDs relate to sprints, so the baseline of 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 description states a specific verb and resource: taking tasks out of a sprint. It also clarifies that the tasks are not deleted, which distinguishes this operation from destructive task removal and from the sibling add_tasks_to_sprint.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied by the tool name and the phrase 'Take tasks out of a sprint,' but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. An agent can infer the purpose but gets no routing rules.

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