sprinty

by ebursztein

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

TypeScript

Local

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.18
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action. Similar tools like sprint_close vs sprint_archive are clearly differentiated by gate checking, and item_done/split/deprecate represent distinct resolution paths. No two tools appear interchangeable.
Naming Consistency4/5
Most tools follow a resource_verb pattern (sprint_new, item_add, note_list, artifact_update). However, a few outliers like changelog, info, overview, next, and search are single words or nouns, breaking the otherwise consistent convention.
Tool Count2/5
At 29 tools, the server exceeds the typical well-scoped range and feels heavy for a single MCP server. While each tool has a distinct purpose, the number is excessive, and some CRUD operations could be consolidated.
Completeness3/5
The surface covers the core sprint lifecycle, items, notes, artifacts, and subsprints. However, there are notable gaps: no subsprint update/delete (only a drop via item_deprecate), no note delete, no artifact delete, and no direct sprint update mechanism.
Average 3.4/5 across 29 of 29 tools scored. Lowest: 1.5/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 69 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on August 15, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under Apache 2.0.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects, read-only nature, return values, or permissions. It mentions none of these, leaving the agent without critical behavioral context. This is a significant transparency gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The one-sentence description is short but under-specified, offering no concrete information about the tool's functionality. It is not a concise summary of a fuller description but rather an inadequate placeholder, similar to the 'Process' example.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 3 undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description does not explain what the tool returns, how parameters affect behavior, or how it relates to the sprint lifecycle. This is completely inadequate for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention any of the three parameters (git_dir, data_dir, workspace_dirs). The description adds no meaning beyond the raw parameter names, so the agent cannot infer their roles or formats.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses abstract phrases like 'startup orientation' and 'compact sprint discovery' without a clear verb or resource. It does not specify whether the tool lists, gets, or displays information, and it fails to distinguish itself from similar sibling tools like 'overview' or 'dashboard_info'.
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 explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'before binding to one sprint' implies a timing cue but does not clearly state scenarios or exclusions, and no alternative tools are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Compact work window' hints at a filtering or selection UI, but no details about state changes, return values, or side effects are given.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short but at the expense of critical information. This is under-specification rather than effective conciseness; every sentence should earn its place but here it fails to convey essential details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is drastically insufficient. It provides almost no context for an AI agent to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
All 4 parameters (past, future, future_per_subsprint, include_high_priority) have no description in the schema, and the tool description does not explain their meaning or impact. Schema description coverage is 0%, leaving the agent completely uninformed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'choosing the next item', which is a verb+resource, but 'compact work window' is vague and doesn't clearly differentiate from siblings like item_get or search. The meaning of 'next' is unspecified (chronological? priority?).
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 is provided on when to use this tool over siblings such as item_get, item_done, or sprint tools. No context, exclusions, or alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are not provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'update', which implies mutation, but does not explain side effects, permissions, idempotency, or what happens to unspecified fields. This is a minimal disclosure for a mutation tool, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, grammatically correct sentence with no fluff. It is front-loaded with the action. However, it is so terse that it sacrifices necessary information, pushing the boundary into under-specification rather than efficient conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and no usage guidance, the description is far from complete. It does not mention which fields can be updated, how related_items behave, or any side effects. An agent would lack crucial context to invoke this tool correctly, especially with several sibling update tools present.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate. The only parameter-related phrase is 'by id', which merely restates the required 'id' field already visible in the schema. No additional meaning is provided for 'path', 'title', 'description', or 'related_items', leaving the agent to guess their semantics.
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's action ('Update') and resource ('an artifact'), and specifies the scope ('by id'). This distinguishes it from sibling update tools like item_update and note_update, which target different resource types. However, it could be more explicit about what fields or behaviors are impacted, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, conditions, or edge cases. While 'artifact' implies a resource type, there is no explicit comparison to siblings or exclusions, leaving the agent without sufficient context to decide when this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'atomically' which is a useful behavioral trait, but it does not disclose what happens to the original item (e.g., whether it is deprecated), whether the operation is reversible, or what the return value looks like. Side effects like creating a seeded subsprint are mentioned but not elaborated.
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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is concise, though it could benefit from a bit more explanatory detail without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with four required parameters and no output schema or annotations, this description is highly incomplete. It does not cover prerequisites, return values, or side effects, and offers no context about the structure of goals and gates required for the split operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no information about the meaning of any of the 5 parameters (id, description, goals, gates, dependencies). It does not compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, leaving the agent to rely solely on parameter names and constraints.
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 uses the specific verb 'Resolve' and indicates the creation of a 'seeded subsprint atomically,' which clearly identifies the action of splitting an item. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like item_done or subsprint_new, and 'seeded subsprint' is jargon that may require domain knowledge.
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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies usage through the action itself, but does not state conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. Sibling tools such as item_done and item_deprecate suggest alternative item resolutions, yet no comparative usage context is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description indicates a read-only operation but fails to disclose behavior such as what happens if no notes exist, if the item ID is invalid, or the format of the returned data. With no annotations, the description carries full burden and provides insufficient transparency.
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 concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core action. It is efficient but perhaps too terse, missing opportunities to add important details without being verbose.
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?
Given the low complexity (one parameter) but no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not specify the return value, error handling, or the nature of 'notes', leaving significant gaps for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.
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?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description only mentions 'attached to an item id', implying that 'id' is an item ID. However, it does not explicitly state this or provide any format or constraints beyond the schema's minLength, adding minimal value.
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 verb ('Read') and the resource ('notes attached to an item id'), distinguishing it from note_add, note_update, and note_list. However, 'notes' plural may imply multiple notes but does not specify if it returns all notes or a single note, causing slight ambiguity.
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 is provided on when to use note_get versus its siblings like note_list or note_update. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or alternatives, leaving the agent to guess the appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It implies a write operation ('Create'), but lacks any details about side effects, dependencies handling, required permissions, or what the response contains. The sole behavior stated is the creation act itself, leaving the agent under-informed about the tool's operational footprint.
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, efficient sentence with the verb front-loaded. It is concise and avoids fluff, though it could benefit from structured detail. It earns a 4 for brevity, but not a 5 because it sacrifices necessary information for brevity.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (nested gates, multiple parameters), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely under-specified. It fails to mention return values, field semantics, or the optional dependencies parameter. A creation tool of this type typically needs at least minimal context about what constitutes a valid subsprint, which is absent.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists 'description, goals, gates' by name, but provides no semantic meaning beyond the names. The 'dependencies' parameter is omitted entirely, and the nested structure of 'gates' (kind/spec/cwd) is not explained, leaving the agent without enough information to correctly populate the schema.
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's action: 'Create a subsprint', with a specific resource and the key fields listed in parentheses. It is distinguishable from sibling 'sprint_new' by the name and the explicit 'subsprint' resource, though it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives.
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 is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like sprint_new or subsprint_get. The description simply states what it does, without mentioning conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. Contextually, it is implied for creating subsprints, but the description itself offers no such direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the action without disclosing behavior: whether it creates or updates, permissions required, or side effects. The schema suggests a possible update via 'id', but this is not clarified.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence is concise, but it omits critical details. It is front-loaded but insufficient for a tool with 5 parameters.
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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It does not explain what 'id' is, whether the tool creates or updates, or what the return value is, leaving the agent underinformed.
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 0%, but the description adds meaning by mapping 'file path' to the path parameter and 'related to item ids' to related_items. However, id, title, and description are left unexplained, partially compensating for the lack of schema descriptions.
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 'Attach a file path to the sprint', which is a specific verb-resource combination. It adds optional relation to item ids, but could be more precise about what an artifact is.
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 siblings like artifact_update or item_add. The description mentions optional related items but provides no exclusion criteria or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'update' without explaining whether this is a partial or full replacement, what happens if the note does not exist, or what the return value is. This is insufficient for a mutating tool.
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, efficient sentence with no redundant words, making it easy to parse and appropriately front-loaded. However, its extreme brevity sacrifices essential context, so it is concise but not complete.
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?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is too minimal to fully inform an agent about behavior, return values, or edge cases. It does not mention any prerequisites, error conditions, or effects beyond 'updates', leaving a significant gap in completeness.
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?
The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description only mentions 'by note id', which merely restates the id parameter. It does not explain the text parameter or add meaning beyond the parameter names and constraints in the schema.
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 'Update a note by note id' uses a specific verb (update) and resource (note), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like note_add and note_get. The scope is also clear: it targets a note by its id.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as note_add or item_update. There is no mention of preconditions, use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer context from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden. It mentions returning a compact overview but does not state whether it is read-only, idempotent, or if it requires any authentication or sprint context. Behavioral traits like side effects are not addressed.
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 a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and output contents without extraneous words.
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?
Given the zero parameters, lack of output schema, and no annotations, the description is adequate in telling what the tool returns but lacks context on invocation preconditions, error handling, or any assumptions (e.g., which sprint is selected).
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist (schema coverage 100%), so the description does not need to add parameter-level meaning. It implicitly communicates that the tool takes no inputs, which is consistent with the empty schema.
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 it provides a compact sprint overview listing specific fields (title, details, notes, artifacts, subsprint counts). While not explicitly distinguishing from sibling tools like sprint_list (which likely lists sprints), the resource and scope are sufficiently clear.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention that it's read-only or that it operates on the current/specified sprint, nor does it exclude cases like searching for multiple sprints.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that the tool stops the dashboard, implying a state change, but it does not mention reversibility, side effects, or required permissions. With no annotations, this is modestly transparent.
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 of 13 words. It is appropriately concise for a zero-parameter tool, though it could add a bit more context.
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?
Given the zero-parameter schema and no annotations, the description adequately states the core function, but it lacks context on whether the action is reversible or what happens to related data.
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?
The tool has no parameters (schema coverage 100% via empty schema), so the description does not need to add parameter meaning. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 uses the verb 'detach' and specifies the resource ('Sprinty binding' and 'dashboard'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like sprint_close or sprint_archive. However, 'this MCP session' is slightly ambiguous without context.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like sprint_close or sprint_archive. The agent is left to infer usage from the name and context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of disclosing side effects. It mentions 'Re-check all gates' and 'write changelog', which are external actions, and 'close the sprint' which is inherently state-changing. However, it does not mention reversibility, permissions, or what happens to related data. It is a basic disclosure but lacks depth.
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 a single concise sentence that lists the key actions without fluff. It earns high marks for brevity and front-loading the core purpose.
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?
The tool has one optional parameter (coverage) with a non-trivial schema, but the description ignores it entirely. It also doesn't mention return values, error conditions, or whether the operation is reversible. Given the complexity of a sprint-close operation again, this is a notable gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the 'coverage' parameter that appears in the schema. It does not mention it at all. The parameter is optional and has a specific structure, but the description adds no semantic value beyond what the schema already shows.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Re-check all gates, write the canonical SemVer changelog, and close the sprint.' It specifies the verb (close) and resource (sprint), and the action sequence distinguishes it from siblings like sprint_resume or sprint_archive.
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?
The description implies the tool is used to finalize a sprint, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like sprint_archive or sprint_new. It gives no guidance on prerequisites or when not to use it, so it only meets 'implied usage' at best.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool returns orientation and that the data_dir is worktree-scoped and uncommitted, but it does not disclose side effects, safety, permissions, or what happens to the data. This leaves significant ambiguity for a tool that likely initiates a sprint environment.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence that wastes no words. Every phrase adds value: the action, the specific inputs, and the return type. It is appropriately sized and easy to parse.
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?
This tool has 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description offers only a minimal overview. It does not explain what 'orientation' means, the full workflow, prerequisites, or side effects. For a tool that creates a sprint, this is not enough context to fully understand its behavior and requirements.
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 0%, and the description only adds meaning for two of four parameters (git_dir and data_dir). The required 'goal' parameter is not mentioned at all, leaving its purpose unclear. context_notes is also omitted. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions, especially for the most critical required parameter.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Start a sprint' – a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings like sprint_resume and sprint_close by focusing on the 'new' action. The additional detail about explicit git_dir and worktree-scoped data_dir provides specificity beyond a generic start.
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?
The description implies usage: use this tool to start a sprint, especially when you have an explicit git_dir and a worktree-scoped, uncommitted data_dir. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use it, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the read returns full untruncated detail, which is a useful behavioral trait, but it does not mention error behavior, authentication/authorization needs, or other side effects. For a simple read operation, this is minimal disclosure, so a score of 2 is appropriate.
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 a single front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It communicates the core purpose immediately and efficiently.
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 getter with one parameter and no output schema, the description gives the essential purpose and a key return characteristic (untruncated detail). However, it lacks information about possible errors, how to find the id if unknown, and the structure of the returned item. This makes it minimally viable but not comprehensive.
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?
The schema has one parameter 'id' with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. However, the description does not explain what 'id' refers to, its format, or any constraints beyond the schema's minLength:1. No additional meaning is added, leaving the agent to infer that id identifies the item.
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 uses a specific verb 'Read' and resource 'one item', and adds 'full untruncated detail' which distinguishes it from other item operations like item_add, item_update, and from list/search tools. It clearly states the tool's function without ambiguity.
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?
The description implies this tool is for reading a single item when full detail is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like search or other getters, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. This is implied usage rather than explicit guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Read' implies non-destructive behavior, but the description does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as return format, pagination, permission requirements, or side effects. The phrase 'compact item rows' hint at the output but remains vague.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It conveys the essential purpose without filler, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 one-parameter read tool, the description is minimally adequate: it identifies the resource and a key output characteristic. However, no output schema or annotations exist, and the description does not explain the 'compact' aspect or whether all subsprint fields are returned. Given the low complexity, this is a minor gap.
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 0%, and the description does not compensate by explaining the 'id' parameter. Although 'id' is self-explanatory given the tool name, the description adds no semantic meaning beyond what the schema already shows (a required string). For low coverage, the description should provide at least basic parameter context.
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 'Read one subsprint with compact item rows' clearly states the action (read), the resource (one subsprint), and a distinguishing detail (compact item rows). It differentiates from sibling tools like subsprint_list (which presumably lists subsprints) and item_get (which targets a single item).
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?
The description implies the tool is for retrieving a single subsprint, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like subsprint_list or item_get. There is no mention of when not to use it or any preconditions, so guidance is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description must carry the full burden. 'Restart' implies stopping and starting, but the description does not disclose side effects, potential downtime, or whether it interrupts existing sessions. It only states the output (URL and port), which is partially informative but leaves out important behavioral context.
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 a single sentence of 12 words, front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every word contributes meaning, with no filler or repetition. It is highly concise and well-structured.
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?
Despite its simplicity, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and output for a zero-parameter tool with no output schema. It specifies the return value (URL and port) and the target resource, which is sufficient for basic understanding. However, it lacks usage context and behavioral warnings, which are covered in other dimensions but overall completeness is still strong for the tool's simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly focuses on the action and output, with no parameter details needed. It adds no unnecessary parameter information, which is appropriate.
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 clearly states the action ('Restart'), the target resource ('the follow-along dashboard'), and the output ('return its URL and port'). This is specific and distinguishes from siblings like dashboard_info, which presumably only provides information.
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?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., dashboard_info). It does not mention prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions. The need to restart is only implied by the tool name and action.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the action of 'binding this MCP session' but does not disclose any side effects, such as whether it detaches from a current sprint, overwrites session state, or requires specific preconditions. The description is limited to the basic action without stating consequences or reversibility.
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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the primary purpose and includes the key distinction from sprint_new. Every word contributes meaning without redundancy or unnecessary filler.
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?
Given the tool modifies session binding, the description is incomplete. It does not explain preconditions (e.g., whether the sprint must be detached or closed), the effect on the current session's active sprint, or any safety considerations. The lack of an output schema and annotations makes the description the only source of operational context, and it falls short.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does mention both parameters and explains they are existing directories used for binding, which adds some meaning beyond the schema. However, it does not clarify which parameters are required (git_dir is required, data_dir is optional) nor does it explain the format or expected content of these directories.
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 ('Resume'), resource ('existing sprint'), and mechanism ('binding this MCP session to an existing git_dir and data_dir'). It also explicitly distinguishes from sprint_new by saying 'without creating a sprint', which is a direct sibling differentiation.
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?
The description clearly indicates this is for resuming an existing sprint, implying it should be used when a sprint already exists rather than when creating a new one. The exclusion 'without creating a sprint' provides some guidance against using it for new sprints, though it does not explicitly name sprint_new or mention alternatives like sprint_detach.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses meaningful behavioral traits: items are atomic, titles/descriptions are bounded, gates are required, and gate_timeout_ms defaults to 5000 with null disabling it. It does not discuss output or failure behavior, but it goes well beyond a bare 'add item' statement.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence that packs essential constraints and a parameter default without redundancy. Every phrase adds information, and there is no filler or repetition of the tool name.
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?
The tool has 8 parameters, nested gate objects, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description only touches a few aspects. It omits the meaning of subsprint, code_locations, gates, dependencies, and high_priority, and gives no indication of return values or side effects. This is not complete enough for reliable autonomous invocation.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only explains gate_timeout_ms semantics and vaguely references 'bounded' titles/descriptions; dependencies, high_priority, subsprint, code_locations, and gates are left undefined. This is insufficient for correctly understanding and constructing all parameters.
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 clearly identifies the action ('Add') and resource ('atomic item'), and the phrase 'bounded title, bounded description, code locations, gates' distinguishes this creation tool from siblings like item_update, item_done, or item_deprecate. It communicates enough about the item type to make the tool's purpose unambiguous.
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?
The description conveys that this tool is for adding new atomic items and explicitly lists required components, but it does not state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. Usage context is implied by the name and sibling set, not explicitly guided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of transparency. It adds useful context by indicating state-dependent applicability (open-item vs completed-item fields), but does not disclose error handling, idempotency, or side effects beyond the basic mutation implied by 'update'. It is better than a generic update but not fully transparent.
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 a single, focused sentence that front-loads the core action and then lists the update categories efficiently. No wasted words or repetition.
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?
Given the tool has 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides a reasonable high-level overview but omits details like return value, error behavior, and partial update semantics. It adequately categorizes fields but leaves room for more completeness in a complex tool.
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 0%, so the description must add meaning beyond the raw schema. It does map fields to categories (metadata, gates/timeout, commit_id, dependencies) and ties them to item states, which adds insight. However, it does not explain individual parameter formats, constraints, or relationships beyond what the schema already shows.
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 clearly states the action ('Update an item by id') and identifies the specific categories of fields (metadata, gates/timeout, commit_id, dependencies). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like item_add (create) and item_get (read) by focusing on modification of existing items.
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?
The description implies usage for updating existing items but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives (e.g., item_done for marking complete, item_split for splitting, etc.). No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, leaving the usage context somewhat implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. The description indicates the tool performs a read-only regex search, but does not disclose error handling (e.g., invalid regex), performance implications, or authentication requirements. The behavioral disclosure is minimal but not misleading.
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?
Single sentence with no wasted words. The core purpose is front-loaded: 'Regex search over sprint text' immediately conveys what the tool does.
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?
Adequate for a simple two-parameter tool with no output schema. However, it does not describe the return format (e.g., list of matches with positions) or how context is formatted. Could be more complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning: 'Regex search' explains the pattern parameter as a regex string, and 'character context' clarifies context_size as number of characters around matches. This compensates well for the lack of schema parameter descriptions.
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 clearly states the tool performs a regex search over sprint text and provides character context around matches. It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like artifact_get or item_get which retrieve individual items.
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 vs alternatives (e.g., using item_get or note_get). No mention of prerequisites, limitations, or scenarios where regex search is inappropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'compact rows', which hints at output formatting but does not clarify ordering, filtering, or whether the result includes all subsprints or a paginated subset.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the core action and adds one meaningful qualifier ('compact rows').
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (zero parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. However, 'compact rows' is vague about what the response looks like, and without an output schema, a bit more detail on the return format would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool accepts no parameters, so the description has no obligation to explain parameter semantics. The empty schema fully covers the parameter side, and the description is consistent with that.
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 clearly states the verb 'list' and the resource 'subsprints', with the additional detail 'compact rows' that distinguishes this tool from other subsprint operations like subsprint_get or subsprint_new.
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?
The plural 'list' implies use for viewing multiple subsprints, and the name aligns with collection-style tools. However, there is no explicit mention of when to use this vs. subsprint_get or other alternatives, and no exclusions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It implies a mutation ('Add') but does not state whether the note is appended, whether the target item must exist, or what happens on failure. The warning about item_add is more usage guidance than behavioral transparency, leaving the tool's side effects under-specified.
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 sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence earns its place. The first sentence identifies the action and target; the second prevents a common misuse. No filler or redundant detail.
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?
The tool is a simple create operation with only two parameters and no output schema or annotations. The description covers the essential purpose and points to the alternative for trackable work, but lacks information about return values, prerequisites (e.g., does the item exist?), or how to retrieve the added notes. It is minimally viable but leaves notable gaps.
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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It mentions 'specific item id' which clarifies that 'id' refers to an item identifier, but it does not explain the 'text' parameter's meaning beyond the schema's name. No formatting, examples, or additional constraints are provided, leaving the agent to infer the expected input.
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 clearly states the verb ('Add') and resource ('a note to a specific item id'), making the tool's function unambiguous. It also differentiates from the sibling tool item_add by explicitly warning that notes are not substitutes for items, which prevents misuse.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly tells the agent when not to use this tool: 'Notes are not substitutes for item_add(); create items for trackable work.' This directly addresses the most likely point of confusion with the sibling tool and gives clear selection guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation, and 'compact rows' hints at the output format. However, it does not disclose ordering, filtering details, or whether artifacts are grouped in any way beyond 'active sprint'. This is minimal but not misleading.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the action, target, and output format with zero filler words. It earns its place entirely and is easy to parse quickly.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description provides sufficient context for the core behavior: listing active sprint artifacts in a compact format. It could be enhanced by specifying what each row contains, but it is not incomplete for typical usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool accepts zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. Per the rubric, 0 params warrants a baseline score of 4, and the description correctly implies that no user input is needed.
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 'List active sprint artifacts as compact rows' uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('active sprint artifacts') and notes output format ('compact rows'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling artifact_add/artifact_get/artifact_update and other list tools by focusing on sprint-specific artifacts.
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?
The description implies when to use the tool (when you need to see active sprint artifacts) but provides no explicit exclusions or alternatives. It does not mention that other tools might be preferred for non-sprint or archived artifacts. This is adequate but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a read operation and the 'compact rows' output format, but lacks details on sorting, ordering, or what fields appear in each row, leaving some ambiguity.
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 a single, concise sentence with no redundant information. It front-loads the purpose and format effectively.
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?
Given the low complexity (one parameter, no output schema), the description adequately captures the essential purpose and output style. Minor gaps exist around read-only behavior and ordering, but the tool is simple enough that these are not critical.
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?
The schema only provides an 'id' parameter with no description (0% coverage). The description mentions 'for an item', implying id is the item identifier, but doesn't explicitly map the parameter to the item. It partially compensates but could be clearer.
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 clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'notes for an item', giving specific scope. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like note_get and note_add by focusing on listing in a compact format.
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?
The description implies when to use the tool: when you need to list notes associated with a specific item. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear and not misleading.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. The word 'Read' signals a non-destructive operation, but no details are given about return format, error behavior (e.g., not found), or authentication context. For a simple fetch, this is minimally adequate but lacks explicit disclosure of expected side effects or edge cases.
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 a single five-word sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant or fluff content.
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?
Given the simplicity of a single-parameter read operation, the description covers the core functionality but lacks information about the return value (though implied) and behavior when the id does not exist. With no output schema, a sentence like 'Returns the artifact object' would improve completeness. Still, the tool is simple enough that this is not a critical gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema only defines 'id' as a string, but the description's 'by id' clarifies that this parameter is the identifier used to select the artifact. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description compensates by providing the essential semantic for the sole parameter, making its purpose clear.
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 the verb 'Read' with the specific resource 'artifact' and the scope 'by id', clearly distinguishing this from artifact_list (which retrieves multiple artifacts) and artifact_add/update (which mutate). This is a model of purpose clarity.
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?
The phrase 'by id' gives clear context that this tool is for fetching a single artifact when its identifier is known, implicitly contrasting with listing or modifying. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is strong enough to guide selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the operation bypasses normal close gates, which is a key behavioral trait, but it does not detail side effects, reversibility, or permissions required. This is an intermediate level of transparency.
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 a single sentence with no fluff, front-loading the action and resource, and immediately providing the key qualifier about bypassing gates.
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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description conveys the core purpose. However, as a lifecycle/mutation tool without annotations, it omits important context such as whether the sprint must be active, what 'archiving' entails for related data, and any prerequisites. Adequate but with gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema defines 'reason' as a required string. The description adds semantic meaning by calling it a 'recovery reason', clarifying its purpose beyond the schema's type constraints. This is valuable but doesn't go further into format or examples.
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 clearly states the action ('Archive') on a specific resource ('the sprint') and specifies the purpose ('with a recovery reason, bypassing normal close gates'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like sprint_close by implying a distinct archival pathway.
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?
The description implies when to use this tool: when needing to archive with a recovery reason and bypass normal close gates. It clearly conveys an exceptional use case, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving some ambiguity in the lifecycle.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals a key side effect: dropping a subsprint deprecates its open items too, and 'drop' strongly implies destructive scope. It does not discuss reversibility or permissions, but the most important behavior is covered.
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 a single compact sentence with no filler. It front-loads the main action and uses the second half to add the subsprint behavior, making every word count.
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?
For a tool with only two required string parameters and no output schema, the description covers both modes, the need for a reason, and the important cascading side effect. It omits return-value details and reversibility, but the low complexity makes this a minor gap rather than a critical one.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the parameters. It clarifies that 'reason' is the deprecation rationale and that 'id' can refer to either an item or a subsprint, adding meaning not found in the schema. This is sufficient for the two simple parameters.
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 clearly states the primary action ('Resolve an item as deprecated with a reason') and an alternate mode ('drop a whole subsprint'), using a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from siblings like item_done and item_update by explicitly naming the deprecation state and the cascading effect on subsprint items.
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?
The description gives clear context: use it when you want to deprecate an item or drop an entire subsprint. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or say when not to use it, but the two usage scenarios are stated enough for an agent to select it correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly reveals that executable gates are run automatically by Sprinty and only manual gates accept agent-supplied results, a critical behavioral trait. However, it does not detail potential side effects, permissions, or return behavior.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, and every sentence adds value. It includes the essential gate behavior without unnecessary filler.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (4 params, nested objects, no output schema), the description covers the core purpose, required inputs, and the most subtle aspect (gate_results). It does not explain success/error responses, but the action's outcome ('completed') is clear enough for typical use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the purpose of commit_id, changelog verb (listing valid values), and the gate_results policy. It does not explain the internal structure of gate_results, but the schema provides that detail.
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 clearly states the tool resolves an item as completed with a commit id and changelog verb, making the primary purpose unambiguous. The specific verb 'Resolve' and resource 'item' distinguish it from siblings like item_update or item_deprecate, which address different states.
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?
The description provides useful guidance on when to supply gate_results: only for manual gates, since Sprinty runs executable gates itself. This clarifies usage boundaries but does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool or alternative tools, leaving some implicit inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses read-only behavior and non-destructive nature. Could mention error behavior if dashboard not running, but otherwise sufficient.
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?
One clear sentence with no wasted words. Front-loaded with the verb 'Return' and specifics.
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?
Given no parameters, no output schema, and simple purpose, the description fully covers what the tool does and returns.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist, schema coverage is 100%. Baseline 4, and description adds meaning by explaining output (URL and port) and condition (current, no restart).
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 clearly states the tool returns the current dashboard URL and port, specifying it does not start or restart the dashboard. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like dashboard_restart.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly tells when to use this tool (to get URL/port) and when not to (if start/restart is needed), by contrasting with dashboard_restart.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![sprinty MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ebursztein/sprinty/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ebursztein/sprinty)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![sprinty MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ebursztein/sprinty/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ebursztein/sprinty)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/ebursztein/sprinty'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server