sprrint

sprrint_tasks_move

Move a task to any workflow status—todo, progress, blocked, or done—to keep project boards up to date.

Instructions

Move a task to todo, progress, blocked, or done.

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>",
      "status": "<status>"
    },
    "name": "sprrint_tasks_move"
  }
}

Input Schema

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

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 30, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It reveals the core state-changing behavior and the valid target statuses, but it says nothing about permissions, reversibility, side effects, or whether transitions are restricted. For a mutation tool, this is a meaningful gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words or restatement of schema fields. It is easy for an agent to parse, even though it is arguably too thin in substance.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, a three-parameter mutation tool needs more context to be invoked safely. The status values are present, but the meaning of `key`, the role of `project`, and the expected result are missing, leaving room for guesswork.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description adds important meaning to the `status` parameter by enumerating the exact accepted values, which the schema itself does not provide. However, `key` and the optional `project` parameter remain essentially unexplained, so the description only partially compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 identifies a concrete operation ('Move'), the resource ('a task'), and the allowed destinations (todo, progress, blocked, done). It is specific and easy to understand, but it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from the sibling sprrint_tasks_update, which could plausibly perform similar status changes.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like sprrint_tasks_update. The allowed status values are helpful, but the description does not state when a move is appropriate, what prerequisites exist, or when another tool should be chosen.

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

Deploy Server