Retrieve sprints with progress summaries and optionally filter by status (backlog, in-progress, done, or cancelled) to track work in a filesystem-based issue tracker.
List sprints with progress.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | No | 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 disclosure burden. It implies a read operation but says nothing about pagination, ordering, what 'progress' contains, or whether results are filtered by the caller's workspace — all material for a list tool.
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?
A single five-word sentence with zero filler, and the verb is front-loaded. It is efficient, though its terseness is the source of the coverage gaps rather than a model of tight writing.
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?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description must explain what is returned. 'Progress' is left undefined and nothing indicates whether all sprints are returned or how status filtering behaves (inclusive, default to all), leaving the agent guessing about result shape.
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 coverage is 100%: the single optional 'status' parameter already documents its enum values and accepted aliases ('wip', 'todo', 'closed'). The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 gives a specific verb+resource ('List sprints') plus a vague return qualifier ('with progress'). It is enough to tell this apart from get_sprint or create_sprint by name alone, but 'progress' is never defined and no sibling is explicitly referenced.
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 versus get_sprint (single sprint detail) or board_summary (aggregate view). The agent must infer that this is the enumeration path from the name and the sole optional status filter.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.