Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
sprinty

sprinty

by ebursztein
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

item_split

Splits a sprint item into a seeded subsprint atomically, preserving goals, gates, and dependencies for structured sprint execution.

Instructions

Resolve an item as split, creating a seeded subsprint atomically.

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>",
      "description": "<description>",
      "goals": "<goals>",
      "gates": "<gates>"
    },
    "name": "item_split"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes
gatesYes
goalsYes
agent_tokenNo
descriptionYes
dependenciesNo
client_agent_idNo
claim_generationNo
client_session_idNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changedv0.2.2
    • 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"
+}
  2. Addedv0.1.17
  3. Removedv0.1.15
  4. First observedv0.1.9

TDQS

C2.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. 'Atomically' is a genuine disclosure about transactional side effects, but nothing is said about what happens to the original item, whether the split is reversible, what permissions or claim state are required, or what claim_generation guards.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, so nothing is wasted. However, at one clause for a 9-parameter mutation the brevity reads as under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.

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?

For a complex mutation with 9 parameters, 4 required, no annotations and no output schema, one sentence is far short of what an agent needs. It does convey the core operation and atomicity, but leaves input contract, preconditions and result semantics entirely unstated.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage across 9 parameters, and the description mentions none of them. Critical fields such as claim_generation (evidently an optimistic-concurrency token), agent_token, dependencies and the gates enum values are completely undocumented anywhere.

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 verb+resource are identifiable ('resolve an item as split, creating a seeded subsprint'), but the phrasing is domain jargon ('resolve', 'seeded subsprint') that an agent cannot decode without outside knowledge. It implies a state transition on an item and creation of a subsprint, distinguishing it only loosely from siblings like item_done, item_update and 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 Guidelines2/5

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

There is no statement of when this should be used instead of item_done, item_update, item_deprecate or subsprint_new, and no prerequisites such as needing to hold a claim. The word 'atomically' hints at a transactional alternative to two separate calls but never says so.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools