sprinty

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

item_done

Marks a sprint item as completed using a commit ID and semver changelog entry; runs executable gates automatically and accepts results only for manual gates.

Instructions

Resolve an item as completed with a commit id and a semver changelog verb (added/fixed/changed/removed/deprecated/security). Sprinty runs the item's executable gates itself; only manual gates take agent-supplied gate_results.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "id": "<id>",
      "commit_id": "<commit_id>",
      "changelog": "<changelog>"
    },
    "name": "item_done"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes
`changelog`	Yes
`commit_id`	Yes
`agent_token`	No
`gate_results`	No
`client_agent_id`	No
`claim_generation`	No
`client_session_id`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedv0.2.2Oct 23, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / agent_token

Added value: +{
+  "minLength": 1,
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / claim_generation

Added value: +{
+  "exclusiveMinimum": 0,
+  "type": "integer"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / client_agent_id

Added value: +{
+  "maxLength": 200,
+  "minLength": 1,
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / client_session_id

Added value: +{
+  "maxLength": 200,
+  "minLength": 1,
+  "type": "string"
+}

Changed3 schema fields changedv0.1.17Aug 12, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / gate_results / items / properties / timed_out
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
```
- removedInput schema / properties / gate_results / minItems
```
Removed value: -1
```
- changedInput schema / required
```
Previous value: -[
-  "id",
-  "commit_id",
-  "gate_results",
-  "changelog"
-]New value: +[
+  "id",
+  "commit_id",
+  "changelog"
+]
```
First observedv0.1.9Jun 28, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With zero annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the single most important behavior: executable gates are run server-side, so gate_results is only for manual gates. That is genuinely non-obvious and prevents an agent from fabricating test results. It does not say whether resolution is reversible, what happens if gates fail, or that agent_token/claim ownership is required.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler; the required payloads come first and the gate-execution caveat follows. Every clause carries information an agent cannot get from the schema.

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 an 8-parameter terminal-state mutation with a nested object, no annotations, and no output schema, the description leaves major gaps: failure behavior when gates fail, concurrency/claim_generation semantics, and the contents of gate_results. What it does cover (gates, changelog verb, commit id) is high-value, but the definition is not self-sufficient.

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%, so the description must compensate and it only partially does: it explains commit_id, the changelog verb semantics, and the gate_results handoff rule. Four remaining parameters (id, agent_token, claim_generation, client_agent_id, client_session_id) and the gate_results sub-fields (kind, spec, evidence, supersedes, supersession_reason) get no explanation at all.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Resolve an item as completed') plus the two payloads it requires, which clearly separates it from item_update and item_progress. It never names a sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied: completion is the last lifecycle step, so the agent can guess this comes after item_claim/item_progress. There is no explicit 'use this instead of item_update' or precondition statement (must hold a claim? matching claim_generation?).

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