Use this command to discover boards before creating or filtering tasks.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | No | Filter boards by board code (3-character code, exact match, case-insensitive). | |
| limit | No | Optional max number of boards to return. | |
| title | No | Filter boards by title (starts-with, case-insensitive). | |
| only_archived | No | Return only archived boards. | |
| include_archived | No | Include archived boards in result. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: not the default treatment of archived boards, not pagination/limit behavior, not result ordering or shape. The archived-filter semantics in the schema are nontrivial and go unexplained.
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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined 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?
For a 5-parameter list tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves key gaps: what the return looks like, archived-board defaults, and pagination. An agent can call it, but completeness is thin.
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 all five parameters are already documented in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds no additional parameter meaning (no guidance on combining include_archived vs only_archived, no rationale for limit).
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 implies a board-discovery/list operation ("discover boards") but never states the core verb+resource combination explicitly the way a list tool should, nor does it note the 5 available filters. An agent can infer it lists boards, but the scope is left vague relative to siblings like get_board_by_namespace or list_board_tags.
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?
It gives one clear temporal cue: use it 'before creating or filtering tasks.' That is genuine usage context, but it names no alternative tools (e.g., get_board_by_namespace for direct lookup) and states no when-not-to-use conditions, leaving the agent to guess how to resolve a board by name.
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.
