Return a board to draft so its public URL stops serving it.
Nothing is deleted; publish it again to bring it back.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
States explicitly that nothing is deleted and the action is reversible ('publish it again to bring it back'). No annotations, so description carries load adequately.
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 sentences with minimal waste. Front-loaded with purpose, then clarifying non-destructive behavior.
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 simple toggle action with one parameter and no output schema needed, description covers purpose, effect, and reversibility. Could mention board metadata retention, but not critical.
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?
Single parameter 'slug' has no description in schema or description. Agent must infer what a 'slug' is (likely board identifier). No added value beyond schema.
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?
Clear verb ('return a board to draft'), resource ('board'), and effect ('public URL stops serving it'). Distinct from sibling publish_board.
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?
Implied usage: when you want to make a board private. No explicit when-not or alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent.
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.
