Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
sprinty

sprinty

by ebursztein
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

subsprint_new

Create a structured subsprint with description, goals, and validation gates to define and manage focused AI coding tasks.

Instructions

Create a subsprint (description, goals, gates).

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": {
      "description": "<description>",
      "goals": "<goals>",
      "gates": "<gates>"
    },
    "name": "subsprint_new"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
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

C2.1/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing: not that this is a mutating write, not what a subsprint contains or how it relates to a parent sprint, not the apparent claim/token concurrency protocol implied by agent_token, client_session_id and claim_generation, and not the 1-5 goals / 1-3 gates limits.

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 single short sentence is front-loaded and free of padding, so nothing is wasted, but it is under-specified rather than concise — the brevity comes at the cost of all useful information.

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 mutating tool with 8 parameters, a nested gates object with a five-value enum, and no annotations or output schema, this description is grossly inadequate. An agent cannot tell what a subsprint is, what a "gate" spec or "kind" means, or how the claim/token parameters affect the call.

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% across 8 parameters. The description names only the three required ones (description, goals, gates), which merely echoes the schema's required list, and ignores the five optional parameters entirely — notably dependencies, agent_token, client_agent_id, client_session_id and claim_generation, whose semantics 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 pair ("Create a subsprint") is specific enough to understand the basic action, but it never distinguishes this tool from siblings like sprint_new, subsprint_get, or subsprint_list, nor does it explain what a subsprint actually is in relation to a sprint. The parenthetical just restates the three required schema fields rather than clarifying scope.

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 when-to-use guidance at all: no mention of when a subsprint is preferred over a sprint, no prerequisites, no statement that subsprint_get/subsprint_list are the read counterparts. An agent must infer everything from the verb "Create".

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