get_team_capacityRetrieve per-team-member sprint capacity, activities, and days off for a given iteration to plan workloads and identify availability.
Get per-team-member sprint capacity, activities, and days off.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| team | No | Team name or ID. Omit to use the project's default team context. | |
| project | No | ||
| iterationId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The word 'Get' implies a read operation, but nothing is disclosed about authentication requirements, error handling, or return format. This is a minimal disclosure that adds little beyond the name.
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, concise sentence with zero waste. It front-loads the core action and result, making it easy to scan. This is an exemplary level of conciseness.
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?
The description is incomplete for an agent to call the tool correctly. It does not explain the required iterationId, the optional team and project parameters, or the structure of the returned data (since there is no output schema). An agent would need to infer too much about expected inputs and outputs.
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 only 33% (only the 'team' parameter has a description). The tool description does not compensate by explaining any of the parameters, such as what iterationId represents or how team/project affect results. The description adds no value beyond the schema's sparse coverage.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: retrieving per-team-member sprint capacity, activities, and days off. It is specific about the resource (team capacity), the scope (per member, sprint), and the content, effectively distinguishing it from siblings like get_iteration_velocity.
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?
The description implies usage for capacity planning but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives such as get_iteration_velocity or get_iteration_work_items. The context is inferred from the wording, not explicitly stated, so it falls short of clear when-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.