Skip to main content
Glama

Create a task board

task_boards_create
Destructive

Create a task board with the standard To-do / In Progress / Done columns. If the name is taken it is numbered ("Launch (1)") and the response says so. It cannot rename, delete or reconfigure a board. Writes one new board and returns board and renamed (true when the name was numbered). Check task_boards_list first to avoid near-duplicates; each call creates a board.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "task_boards_create"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesBoard name.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
boardYes
renamedYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Goes well beyond the annotations: discloses that name collisions get auto-numbered ('Launch (1)'), that the response carries a `renamed` flag, and that each call always creates a board (non-idempotent). This matches readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false while adding real behavioral context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Four tight sentences: what it creates, the collision behavior, what it cannot do, and the duplicate-avoidance warning. The most decision-relevant facts come first with no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter creation tool with an output schema already present, the description covers side effects, naming behavior, and the duplicate-check prerequisite. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single `name` parameter is fully documented there, so the description adds no constraints like the 120-character limit. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a task board') and immediately scopes it with the default columns, so it is clearly distinguishable from task_boards_list and task_board_schema. An agent knows exactly what the call produces.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly says to check task_boards_list first to avoid near-duplicates, and rules out renaming, deleting or reconfiguring a board. It does not name the sibling tools that handle those excluded actions, but the when-to-use guidance is concrete.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.