Move a sprint to backlog, in-progress, done, or cancelled by ID and target status, letting AI agents track sprint progress in a filesystem-based issue tracker.
Move a sprint to another status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | sprint id such as S-001 | |
| status | Yes | backlog | in-progress | done | cancelled (aliases like 'wip', 'todo', 'closed' accepted) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a mutation/state transition but does not disclose transition rules, side effects, permissions, reversibility, or what happens to tasks in the sprint when the status changes.
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 description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to the missing usage and behavioral context.
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?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It should explain transition constraints, valid state changes, side effects, or required permissions, none of which are covered.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and the input schema already documents both required parameters, including the sprint id format and valid status values with aliases. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Move a sprint to another status.' It clearly identifies a status-transition operation on a sprint, distinguishing it from task-level siblings like change_task_status. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with other sprint-related siblings such as create_sprint or sprint_add_tasks.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. An agent must infer usage entirely from the name and the simple sentence, which is insufficient given sibling tools like change_task_status and create_sprint.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.