Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
sprinty

sprinty

by ebursztein
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

sprint_new

Start a new sprint with explicit git directory and worktree-scoped data directory, returning orientation to guide AI coding agents.

Instructions

Start a sprint with explicit git_dir and a worktree-scoped, uncommitted data_dir; returns orientation.

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": {
      "goal": "<goal>",
      "git_dir": "<git_dir>"
    },
    "name": "sprint_new"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
goalYes
git_dirYes
data_dirNo
agent_tokenNo
context_notesNo
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

C2.5/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses that data_dir is worktree-scoped and uncommitted and that the tool returns orientation, but it does not explain mutation side effects, authentication expectations around agent_token, whether a worktree is created, or what happens on failure.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and free of filler, but it is undersized for an eight-parameter mutation tool with no annotations. Brevity here becomes under-specification rather than effective 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 sprint-start operation with eight parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is far too sparse. It gives some orientation about git_dir, data_dir scope, and return value, but leaves the agent without enough context to invoke the tool reliably.

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 git_dir and data_dir. Six parameters, including goal, agent_token, context_notes, client_agent_id, claim_generation, and client_session_id, are left unexplained beyond their names and JSON Schema 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 a specific verb and resource: 'Start a sprint.' It also mentions git_dir, data_dir, and returning orientation. However, it does not distinguish this operation from sibling lifecycle tools such as sprint_resume, sprint_close, 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 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 sprint_resume or other sprint lifecycle alternatives. The phrase 'Start a sprint' implies creation, but the description provides no prerequisites, exclusions, or selection criteria.

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