sprrint

sprrint_blackhole_pull

Move a task out of the Black Hole into the landing sprint, placing it in the active sprint if present, otherwise in the planned sprint.

Instructions

Pull a void task into the landing sprint (active first, else planned).

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": {
      "key": "<key>"
    },
    "name": "sprrint_blackhole_pull"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`key`	Yes
`project`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 30, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure on its own; it does disclose the target-selection precedence ('active first, else planned') and the move/pull side effect. However, it does not clarify what qualifies as a void task, failure conditions when no active/planned sprint exists, or whether the operation is reversible beyond the existence of blackhole_drop.

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 compact sentence with the action first and the behavioral rule in a parenthetical; no filler and no repetition of schema information. Every word earns its place.

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 description covers the core action and selection rule, but with no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation, an agent cannot be fully confident about required input semantics or response/error behavior. It is not completely unusable, but it leaves meaningful gaps for a mutating tool.

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 never mentions 'key' or 'project', so the agent receives no help on what 'key' identifies or what 'project' selects. The bare property names 'Key' and 'Project' are not enough to define the required 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 uses a specific verb ('Pull') with a clear resource ('void task') and destination ('landing sprint'), and the blackhole namespace distinguishes it from blackhole_drop as the inverse operation. Even without naming a sibling, the direction of the action is 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?

It implies use when a task residing in the blackhole/void needs to be restored to an active or planned sprint, and it includes a selection rule for the target sprint. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so an agent must infer routing from context rather than being told 'use X instead.'

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

Deploy Server