Retrieve a Backlogs sprint by its ID from OpenProject to inspect sprint details. Requires OpenProject 17.3 or newer.
Get a Backlogs sprint by id. Requires OpenProject 17.3 or newer.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sprint_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| name | Yes | ||
| status | Yes | ||
| created_at | Yes | ||
| start_date | Yes | ||
| updated_at | Yes | ||
| finish_date | Yes | ||
| defining_workspace | Yes | ||
| defining_workspace_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.4v0.4.0v0.3.7Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseOutput schema / properties / status_hrefRemoved value: -{
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
- ],
- "title": "Status Href"
-}Output schema / properties / urlRemoved value: -{
- "title": "Url",
- "type": "string"
-}Output schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "id",
- "name",
- "status",
- "status_href",
- "start_date",
- "finish_date",
- "defining_workspace_id",
- "defining_workspace",
- "created_at",
- "updated_at",
- "url"
-]New value: +[
+ "id",
+ "name",
+ "status",
+ "start_date",
+ "finish_date",
+ "defining_workspace_id",
+ "defining_workspace",
+ "created_at",
+ "updated_at"
+]v0.3.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that with the server-version prerequisite, but says nothing about behavior when the id is unknown or the Backlogs module is disabled.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the hard prerequisite. No filler or redundancy.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. Still, the origin of sprint_id and the error path for a missing sprint are unaddressed, leaving the definition only minimally viable for a lookup tool.
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 0% for the single parameter, so the description carries the burden, yet it only restates 'by id' without explaining that sprint_id is an integer identifier obtained from list_sprints or what happens with an invalid value. It adds essentially nothing beyond the parameter name.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Get a Backlogs sprint by id'), which is enough to tell it apart from the sibling list_sprints. It doesn't explicitly name list_sprints as the collection-level alternative, but the singular 'by id' scoping does the disambiguating work.
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?
Usage is implied rather than stated: you call it when you already have a sprint id. The version prerequisite ('Requires OpenProject 17.3 or newer') is genuinely useful deployment guidance, but there is no explicit instruction on where to obtain the id or when to prefer list_sprints.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.