sprrint

sprrint_sprints_update

Update an existing sprint's details, including name, goal, status, schedule, or project, to keep sprint information current.

Instructions

Update a sprint.

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": {
      "slug": "<slug>"
    },
    "name": "sprrint_sprints_update"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`goal`	No
`name`	No
`slug`	Yes
`status`	No
`ends_on`	No
`project`	No
`starts_on`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 30, 2026

TDQS

C2.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only indicates that the action mutates a sprint; it does not mention partial-update semantics, required authentication, side effects, reversibility, or what happens when fields are omitted or set to null.

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 description is short, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It provides no structured information that helps an agent select or invoke the tool correctly.

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?

With seven parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, a two-word description is severely insufficient. An agent cannot determine required inputs, optional update behavior, or expected results without additional information.

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%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameter meaning, but it does not mention any of the seven parameters. The slug identifier, updatable fields, and nullable-field semantics are all left undocumented.

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 states the generic verb-resource pair 'Update a sprint', which is specific enough to identify the mutation target. However, it reads like a paraphrase of the tool name and provides no details about what fields or behaviors are involved, and it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling sprint tools.

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 guidance about when to use this tool instead of sprrint_sprints_create, sprrint_sprints_delete, sprrint_sprints_get, or sprrint_sprints_list. No context, prerequisites, or alternative conditions are provided.

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

Deploy Server