retro.board.insights.listReturns insights (clusters) and suggested actions for a retrospective board. Insights include topic clusters with sentiment, urgency, and category analysis.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| board_id | Yes | The ID of the board to get insights for. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read nature is already covered. Description adds context about returned content (clusters, sentiment, urgency, category) but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as latency, staleness, or permission requirements.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with action and resource, no filler or redundancy. Efficiently communicates the core purpose.
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 one-parameter read tool with annotations and schema coverage, the description is largely complete. It explains the two main return categories (insights and suggested actions) and insight content, though it omits output structure details.
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 covers board_id with a 100% description, so baseline 3 applies. Description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.
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?
Description uses specific verb 'Returns' and identifies a unique resource: insights (clusters) and suggested actions for a retrospective board. It distinguishes from siblings by listing specific content dimensions (topic clusters, sentiment, urgency, category analysis).
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like retro.board.summary.get, retro.board.health.get, or retro.board.actions.list. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative recommendations are provided.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action, with overlapping tools like retro.actions.list and retro.board.actions.list explicitly differentiated in descriptions. The naming hierarchy (domain.resource.subresource.verb) helps keep properties separate.
Tools follow a consistent dot-separated resource-verb pattern, with singular/plural usage following standard collection vs. single-resource conventions (e.g., games.list vs. game.get). All verbs are lowercase with underscores, making the surface predictable.
With 29 tools spanning two distinct domains (poker planning and retrospectives), the surface feels heavy and may overwhelm users. The calibration suggests 25+ is excessive, and splitting into separate servers could improve focus.
The tool set covers most management tasks for both poker games and retrospectives, but lacks a core operation for adding messages/cards to a board, which is essential for a retro tool. Also, no board creation or deletion tools, leaving some lifecycle operations incomplete.