Retrieve the active sprint from GitHub Projects to track current progress and manage workflow tasks efficiently.
Get the currently active sprint
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| includeIssues | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'Get' operation, implying it's likely read-only, but doesn't confirm this or describe any other behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'active' means in this context. The description is too minimal for a tool with parameters.
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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for what it conveys, though it lacks necessary detail for full tool understanding.
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?
Given the tool has one undocumented parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'includeIssues' does, what the return value looks like, or any behavioral context needed for proper tool invocation in a system with many sibling sprint-related tools.
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?
The input schema has one required parameter 'includeIssues' with 0% description coverage in the schema, and the tool description provides no information about parameters. The description doesn't mention 'includeIssues' at all, leaving the parameter completely undocumented and unexplained.
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 'Get the currently active sprint' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('currently active sprint'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_sprint_metrics' or 'list_sprints' that might also retrieve sprint information, preventing a perfect score.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_sprint_metrics' or 'list_sprints'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or specific contexts where this tool is preferred, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.