Retrieve sprints for a Jira board, optionally filtered by active, future, or closed state. Use it to track board sprint status or plan upcoming work.
Sprints from a board, optionally filtered to active, future, or closed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| state | No | ||
| boardId | Yes | ||
| startAt | No | ||
| maxResults | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds only the state-filter behavior, and says nothing about pagination despite startAt/maxResults existing, nor about return volume for large boards.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One short sentence, front-loaded with the resource and scoping, with zero filler. Appropriately sized for a simple list tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema exists, so the description should describe return shape or at least pagination semantics, and it does neither. With 0% schema coverage and no annotations gaps left, the definition is adequate to identify the tool but thin for calling it correctly on large boards.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden, yet it only explains the state enum. boardId (the sole required param), startAt, and maxResults go completely unexplained - notably the two pagination params, which materially affect invocation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific resource (sprints), its source (a board), and the filter dimension (state). An agent can distinguish it from getJiraBoardSprintData and manageJiraSprint by the list-vs-get/manage verb, though the description never names those siblings explicitly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied: fetch sprints belonging to a board, optionally narrowed by state. No when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing to the sibling tools that also touch sprints (getJiraBoardSprintData, manageJiraSprint).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.