DutyHub MCP Server

create_sprint

Creates a new sprint in a DutyHub project, specifying name, goal, start and end dates, and status.

Instructions

Bir projede yeni sprint oluşturur.

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": {
      "project_id": "<project_id>",
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "create_sprint"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`project_id`	Yes
`name`	Yes
`goal`	No
`start_date`	No	YYYY-MM-DD veya ISO
`end_date`	No	YYYY-MM-DD veya ISO
`status`	No	planned/active/completed. Varsayılan: planned

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jun 10, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action ('creates') without mentioning side effects, permissions, error conditions, or return value.

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 description is a single, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. However, it is in Turkish, which may reduce accessibility for non-Turkish agents.

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?

With 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It lacks context about return values, prerequisites, or behavior for parameter validation.

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 50% (3 of 6 params have descriptions), but the tool description adds no parameter information. It does not compensate for the undocumented parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool creates a new sprint in a project, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'complete_sprint' and 'start_sprint', but could be more precise about the scope.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or context for usage.

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

Deploy Server