Create a new feedback board, as a DRAFT.
`slug` is the board's URL path segment (lowercase, hyphenated, unique);
`name` is the display name. The new board's public URL 404s until a
human publishes it from the dashboard -- `publish_board` is off by
default (403 `publish_disabled`).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| slug | Yes | ||
| description | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses key behavioral traits: draft state, 404 until published, and publish_disabled error. Although no annotations exist, the description adequately covers the majority of behavioral aspects for a creation tool.
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 concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose. It could be slightly more structured, but every sentence adds value without unnecessary verbosity.
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's low complexity, the description covers drafting behavior and key constraints. An output schema exists, so return values are documented. It lacks explicit permissions or usage prerequisites, but overall is adequate.
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 description adds meaning to the 'slug' and 'name' parameters beyond the schema (slug: URL path, unique, hyphenated; name: display name). The 'description' parameter is not explained, but schema shows default null and no further context is needed.
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 'Create a new feedback board, as a DRAFT' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like publish_board and unpublish_board by indicating the board starts as a draft.
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?
Explicitly explains when to use (create draft board) and when not (expecting immediate live URL). It notes the need for publish_board and the 403 error if publish is disabled, providing clear usage boundaries.
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.
All tools have clearly distinct purposes. The board, post, comment, vote, analytics, changelog, queue, and utility tools each target different resources or actions without overlap.
Most tools follow verb_noun snake_case (e.g., create_board, get_post). Two tools (ping, whoami) are not verb_noun but are standard conventions, keeping overall consistency high.
22 tools is well-scoped for a feedback board management server. Each tool covers a distinct operation without unnecessary duplication or bloat.
Covers core lifecycle for boards (CRUD + publish/unpublish), posts (CRUD + claim/release + status proposal + evidence), and comments (create/list). Missing comment update/delete and vote creation, but these are minor gaps for the domain.