Use this command to read a board's effective settings — the stored value, or the default when unset (lazy). Pass a key to read one setting; omit it to read all. Returns { key: value } object(s).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | No | Optional setting key (e.g. "autoAddAssignees"). Omit to read all settings. | |
| board_id | Yes | Board ID to read settings for. |
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, and it does disclose the non-obvious 'effective/lazy' semantics: an unset key still returns a default rather than nothing. It also states the return shape ({ key: value } object(s)). It does not cover permissions or behavior on an invalid/unknown key, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
Three short sentences, zero filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded ahead of the parameter mechanics and return shape. Every clause earns its place.
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 two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, the description covers purpose, the lazy-default behavior, and the return shape despite there being no output schema. Only error/edge-case behavior (unknown key, missing board) is absent.
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%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, including the 'omit to read all' behavior. The description restates this but adds no format, naming convention, or validity detail beyond it, 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?
States a specific verb and resource — reading a board's effective settings — and adds the scope nuance that the value may be the stored one or the default. It is readily distinguishable from the write-side sibling set_board_setting and the schema-introspection sibling get_board_settings_schema.
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 explains how to call it (pass a key for one setting, omit for all) but gives no guidance on when to prefer it over siblings such as get_board_settings_schema or get_project_context. Usage is implied by the read verb rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
