Get an overview of a project's home dashboard, showing sprints, tasks, and progress. Select a project to view its current status and key details.
Project home dashboard.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "sprrint_home"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior, but 'Project home dashboard' says nothing about what the tool returns, side effects, data scope, or permissions. An agent cannot infer whether this is a read-only view, a navigational hub, or something else.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The text is short, but brevity here is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The sentence provides almost no operative information and does not front-load any actionable content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented optional parameter, this description is far from complete. The agent cannot reliably determine the tool's purpose, input semantics, or return behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage for the single optional 'project' parameter. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema's property name; it does not explain what project values are accepted, whether null means all projects, or how the parameter affects the dashboard.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Project home dashboard.' is a noun phrase that restates the resource name without a verb or explicit function. It does not distinguish the tool from siblings like overview, now, or projects_get, all of which likely surface project-related information.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as sprrint_overview or sprrint_projects_get. The description gives no context for selecting this tool over its siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.